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

[TheDag]

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.

once again you make assumptions and then think you have a convincing argument. You did not address my point in this reply. So address the point made. It would be good if you actually addressed all the points but I will settle for just one at the moment.

Also wondering if you are going to go back to the other thread where responses do not have to be moderated before being posted.

 

[Achilles6129]

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.

Here's a full outline of the entire Biblical usage of the word:

Hebrew Lexicon :: H8610 (KJV)

You will note that Genesis 4:21 states:

"And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle H8610 the harp and organ." (KJV)

Note that the word "handle" is the exact same word as used in our passage which you wish to translate as "rape." I will assume here that you do not believe that Jubal was the father of all that rape various musical instruments.

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.

Actually I am citing the age at which God held the Exodus generation accountable for their sin:

"29 your dead bodies shall fall in this very wilderness; and of all your number, included in the census, from twenty years old and upward, who have complained against me," Num. 14:29 (NRSV)

This is the closest Scripture comes to marking the age of adulthood. I think it is fair to say that if God is not going to punish those under the age of twenty for any sort of rebellion against him then he does not consider them to be adults.

It doesn't matter that later Jewish tradition allowed girls to get married at a much younger age (they used to get married at a much younger age in America too). Later Jewish tradition misinterpreted Scripture in many ways (as is shown by the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.), and added in many commandments that God did not intend. What matters is what God intended; and for all intents and purposes we can see that he intended the age of adulthood to be twenty. This, then, at the very least, makes your claim that God wanted the marriages (or allowed the rape) of pre-pubescent girls to be completely fallacious.

You will note that the translations using "rape" are mostly modern. The translations not using "rape" are mostly older.

The NASB, NRSV, ESV, etc., can hardly be considered "older." They are all modern translations. You can go here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22:28&version=KJ21

and browse a whole list of modern translations that don't use the word "rape." Your claim is simply false.

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).

There aren't more old translations than modern translations. There are many, many more modern translations than old translations. As a matter of fact, about the only real old translation that you have is the KJV.

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.

The Holman is not held as one of the very best translations and not even very widely used. The Southern Baptists favor the NASB and most others favor either the NIV (which uses rape), the ESV, or the NRSV. But none of this really matters because it doesn't matter how the translators translate it: it matters what the Hebrew says. And the Hebrew doesn't say "rape."

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.

The previous example also dealt with an engaged woman (vv. 23-24). It has nothing to do with being another's "property," it simply has to do with rape. It deals with consensual intercourse with an engaged woman (in which both die) and unconsensual intercourse with an engaged woman (in which case only the rapist dies).

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 not the same in Hebrew and by now you are well aware of that. It doesn't matter that a few translations translate the passage incorrectly (as good as the translations are for the rest of the Bible). What matters, again, is what the Hebrew says. So in this case, the Complete Jewish Bible is making a mistake. We could also turn to the CEV...:

"28 Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught," Deut. 22:28 (CEV)

If I discover a man raping someone, the victim does not suddenly disappear.

If an actual rape took place then it would be found out regardless. The woman would say something as soon as she were able and so it would be unnecessary to add a phrase like "and they are discovered." The phrase "and they are discovered" can only mean that it was a consensual act that was perpetrated by both of them.

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".

You're simply wrong. The text just says "and they are discovered." You can look at an interlinear here:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/deu22.pdf

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.

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of OT law. The virgin passage referred to (Deut. 22:13-21) is very likely referring to a woman who had sexual intercourse while she was betrothed to be married (but the actual marriage hadn't taken place yet). When you are affianced you are basically viewed as husband/wife in OT law. There is, however, another law which is very similar to the Deut. 22:28 passage we are looking at which also talks about intercourse prior to marriage:

"16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall [q]pay money equal to the dowry for virgins." Ex. 22:16-17 (NASB)

This is a passage which I believe was overlooked during the debate. Notice that intercourse before marriage is not punished with death: the two are simply required to get married. When we come to Deut. 22:13-21 with this passage in mind we see that it is actually referring to a woman who has intercourse while she was affianced, i.e., in Biblical law, married.

Thus we can see that a woman having intercourse prior to marriage/betrothal is not punished with death by God.

 

[TheDag]

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".

Wrong actually. it does not force them to do so which would be understood by fairly basic understanding of biblical translation issues. It is a choice by the translators.

 

[BL2KTN]

once again you make assumptions and then think you have a convincing argument. You did not address my point in this reply. So address the point made. It would be good if you actually addressed all the points but I will settle for just one at the moment.

Because I tried to address your points, and because you feel I failed to do so, let's try in a different way. Succinctly state your point and I will do my best to reply to it. Make it direct, concise, and unambiguous.

Also wondering if you are going to go back to the other thread where responses do not have to be moderated before being posted.

This being the official peanut gallery, I would prefer to stay here. Perhaps you can speak with a moderator about having it moved back to a more appropriate forum since (as it was for weeks).

Here's a full outline of the entire Biblical usage of the word:

Hebrew Lexicon :: H8610 (KJV)

You will note that Genesis 4:21 states:

"And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle H8610 the harp and organ." (KJV)

Note that the word "handle" is the exact same word as used in our passage which you wish to translate as "rape." I will assume here that you do not believe that Jubal was the father of all that rape various musical instruments.

I see how that would lead you to believe that our verb in question (taphas) cannot be used to mean "rape". One of the problems, however, is that I doubt you are fluent in Hebrew. And while I applaud you for studying to better educate yourself, I would caution you that education for the purpose (whether conscious or subconscious) of proving oneself correct often has a habit of doing just that... even if it isn't in line with actual truth. I have a degree in biblical studies, have taken classes on Hebrew, and while I'm not fluent, I do understand it well enough to be knowledgeable when I discuss it. That, along with my speaking multiple modern languages, really helps in understanding how to translate text.

Now before I demonstrate how the word "taphas" refers to rape, I want you to consider that you could be wrong. I also want you to consider that I could be wrong. Both of us could be wrong, but one of us is probably right. I'm happy to concede that if you have a more convincing argument, and if further study provides me with no better alternative than your position, then I will happily forfeit my belief and take the stronger of the two. Likewise, I hope that you will agree to the same. If not, then I am discussing this with a closed-mind and the dialogue is pointless.

Now, onto taphas:

Taphas is a verb much like the verb tocar in Spanish. It is a verb which signifies touching, holding, grabbing, etc. When used with various objects, the action it refers to is different. For example, when "taphas" is used in reference to a musical instrument, it means to play that instrument. When it is used in reference to a shovel or other tool, it means to use that tool in the manner in which one would expect. When the direct object of the verb is a person, however, it means to seize/capture/grasp. Additionally, the verb has a connotation of overpowering someone/something when it is used with sentient objects (people, cities, kings, etc).

Here are the meanings that taphas can have:

to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
(Qal)
to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
(Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
(Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

You'll note that niphal refers to when taphas has occurred to an object. What does it mean to an object to be experiencing taphas? It means to be seized / arrested / caught / taken / captured. When taphas is used in reference to a girl, she has been seized / arrested / caught / taken / captured. These words indicate that the object has been physically restrained outside of their control (seized, arrested, caught, taken, captured). Thus, we know when taphas is used to refer to a girl in Deuteronomy, that the girl has been restrained outside of her control. We see this when taphas is used in other places of the bible:

"When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take H8610 it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege:" -- Deu 22:19

"And it shall be, when ye have taken H8610 the city, that ye shall set the city on fire: according to the commandment of the LORD shall ye do. See, I have commanded you." -- Jos 8:8

"And the king of Ai they took H8610 alive, and brought him to Joshua." -- Jos 8:23

"And Saul went on this side of the mountain, and David and his men on that side of the mountain: and David made haste to get away for fear of Saul; for Saul and his men compassed David and his men round about to take H8610 them." -- 1 Sam 23:26

So, with that lesson on taphas, I'll continue on with the rest of your post. I hope you can see why the term "seize" does not mean the things which you and Jeremy have asserted (seduction or mutually desired interaction). That's why better translations do not stop at the term "seize", but instead use the term "rape." While the term "seize" can mean what the Hebrew author intended, there are those like Jeremy who can try to smooth over the term "seize" so that it does not convey the idea of "taphas". In reality, the law is referring to a girl who has been captured / seized / taken / arrested.

Actually I am citing the age at which God held the Exodus generation accountable for their sin:

"29 your dead bodies shall fall in this very wilderness; and of all your number, included in the census, from twenty years old and upward, who have complained against me," Num. 14:29 (NRSV)

This is the closest Scripture comes to marking the age of adulthood. I think it is fair to say that if God is not going to punish those under the age of twenty for any sort of rebellion against him then he does not consider them to be adults.

You have moved the goalposts. Your original remark was that the bible said adulthood starts at twenty. Now you are using terms like "the closest Scripture comes," and "I thin it is fair to say." I'm not interested in what is fair for you to say... I'm interested in your original statement that the bible declares individuals adults at twenty.

As I said then, it doesn't.

It doesn't matter that later Jewish tradition allowed girls to get married at a much younger age (they used to get married at a much younger age in America too). Later Jewish tradition misinterpreted Scripture in many ways (as is shown by the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.), and added in many commandments that God did not intend. What matters is what God intended; and for all intents and purposes we can see that he intended the age of adulthood to be twenty. This, then, at the very least, makes your claim that God wanted the marriages (or allowed the rape) of pre-pubescent girls to be completely fallacious.

Again, you are wrong. The bible shows that the patriarchs married their wives at the onset of puberty and before.

"There are two opinions in the Midrash as to how old Rebecca was at the time of her marriage. According to the traditional counting cited by Rashi, Isaac was 37 years old at the time of the Binding of Isaac; Sarah, who gave birth to Isaac when she was 90, died immediately after the binding when she was 127 years old, making Isaac around 37 at that time. News of Rebecca's birth reached Abraham immediately after that event. Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebecca,[7] making Rebecca 3 years old at the time of her marriage.[8] According to the second opinion, Rebecca was 14 years old at the time of their marriage." -- Rebecca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BL2KTN]

The NASB, NRSV, ESV, etc., can hardly be considered "older." They are all modern translations. You can go here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...8&version=KJ21

and browse a whole list of modern translations that don't use the word "rape." Your claim is simply false.

I said that translations using the term "rape" are mostly modern, and those not using "rape" are mostly older. That you only cite three modern translations sticking with seize rather than rape is proof of what I say. Furthermore, as I've shown you about the term "taphas," that they use the term "seize" does not mean that they recognize this to be anything other than rape... it simply means they're not willing to use the controversial, but more accurate, terminology in the verse.

There aren't more old translations than modern translations. There are many, many more modern translations than old translations. As a matter of fact, about the only real old translation that you have is the KJV.

That is very silly. The bible has been translated for over a thousand years... the idea that the King James version from the seventeenth century is the "only real old translation" is ludicrous.

The Holman is not held as one of the very best translations and not even very widely used. The Southern Baptists favor the NASB and most others favor either the NIV (which uses rape), the ESV, or the NRSV. But none of this really matters because it doesn't matter how the translators translate it: it matters what the Hebrew says. And the Hebrew doesn't say "rape."

What you say and what is reality doesn't match up (again). In all of the United States (not just Baptists), the Holman Christian Study Bible is more popular than the NASB. Additionally, it is the sixth most used bible, which I suppose makes it "very widely used".
Top Ten Bible Translations in the United States - ThomRainer.com

I think it would be wise for you to reference what you say before doing so. It would save you from being incorrect.

The Hebrew term "taphas" refers to the girl having been taken / captured / seized / arrested in order that the man can have sexual relations with her. How a girl can be captured for sex and that not be rape, perhaps you can explain.

The previous example also dealt with an engaged woman (vv. 23-24). It has nothing to do with being another's "property," it simply has to do with rape. It deals with consensual intercourse with an engaged woman (in which both die) and unconsensual intercourse with an engaged woman (in which case only the rapist dies).

An engaged woman (betrothed) was considered the property of her betrothed husband. He has already paid the bride price to the father (purchased the woman). And yes, because verses 23-24 handle the consequences of both consensual and unconsensual sex of an engaged girl (that takes care of all possibilities), we know that the verses we're debating aren't discussing an engaged girl. Thus, the verses we are debating are explicitly referring to a girl who is the property of her father, not yet engaged.

The term is not the same in Hebrew and by now you are well aware of that. It doesn't matter that a few translations translate the passage incorrectly (as good as the translations are for the rest of the Bible). What matters, again, is what the Hebrew says. So in this case, the Complete Jewish Bible is making a mistake. We could also turn to the CEV...:

"28 Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught," Deut. 22:28 (CEV)

As we've seen, the translations using the term "rape" are doing so rightfully. Furthermore, I don't think you've demonstrated that you are in a position to knowledgeably critique them. However, we can both agree that the Contemporary English Version gets it very wrong here. I've shown you what "taphas" means, and it certainly does not mean anything to do with talking. And, given that the CEV is the only translation to say this (out of hundreds of translations), I think I'd err on the side of the hundreds.

Here's a thorough review of the CEV that shows how badly it compares to others. I think especially concerning is that it was translated by only three people with no credentials.
Contemporary English Version

If an actual rape took place then it would be found out regardless. The woman would say something as soon as she were able and so it would be unnecessary to add a phrase like "and they are discovered." The phrase "and they are discovered" can only mean that it was a consensual act that was perpetrated by both of them.

I think that it is unfruitful to assume how a prepubescent girl might act three-thousand years ago, in a culture you hardly understand, if she were raped. That you believe you are capable of doing so reveals that you may need to learn some intellectual humility. Furthermore, it is impossible to catch / find / discover a rapist without his victim.

You're simply wrong. The text just says "and they are discovered." You can look at an interlinear here:

File not found

Your link will not open.

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of OT law. The virgin passage referred to (Deut. 22:13-21) is very likely referring to a woman who had sexual intercourse while she was betrothed to be married (but the actual marriage hadn't taken place yet). When you are affianced you are basically viewed as husband/wife in OT law. There is, however, another law which is very similar to the Deut. 22:28 passage we are looking at which also talks about intercourse prior to marriage:

"16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall [q]pay money equal to the dowry for virgins." Ex. 22:16-17 (NASB)

Yep, there's the law for consensual sex with a young girl. The seducer simply pays the bride price, and the father decides whether to give him the girl. This only adds to the evidence that the verses we are discussing are about unconsensual sex with a young girl (otherwise they are redundant and contradictory). Thank you for bringing this verse up, I kept thinking that Jeremy would and he never did.

You'll note the differences if it is consensual versus not. If it is not, then the rapist must marry her and cannot divorce her. That's not the case with seduction. Also, you'll note that what Jeremy wishes "seize" to mean is demonstrated in Exodus 22:16. This is yet more evidence that Yahweh commands male rapists to marry their female victims.

This is a passage which I believe was overlooked during the debate. Notice that intercourse before marriage is not punished with death: the two are simply required to get married. When we come to Deut. 22:13-21 with this passage in mind we see that it is actually referring to a woman who has intercourse while she was affianced, i.e., in Biblical law, married.

Thus we can see that a woman having intercourse prior to marriage/betrothal is not punished with death by God.

We agree on that and likely always have. If it is consensual sexual interaction, then the man must pay the dowry and the father has a choice in giving away his daughter. If it is unconsensual sexual interaction, then the man must pay the dowry, must marry the girl, and can never divorce her.

By the way, although you're still on the wrong side of the facts, you would have done a better job debating than Jeremy. I think the debate would have been more interesting with you discussing the word "taphas" and bringing other laws into the debate. Jeremy was more interested in playing "gotcha games" and being praised in the peanut gallery by people who were never going to concede any points.

If you respect the bible and what it says, I'm sure you'll review your beliefs. If you respect your own doctrines and ideologies over the bible, then I'm sure you'll continue to try to prove what you believe is what the bible teaches.

 

[Achilles6129]

Taphas is a verb much like the verb tocar in Spanish. It is a verb which signifies touching, holding, grabbing, etc. When used with various objects, the action it refers to is different. For example, when "taphas" is used in reference to a musical instrument, it means to play that instrument. When it is used in reference to a shovel or other tool, it means to use that tool in the manner in which one would expect. When the direct object of the verb is a person, however, it means to seize/capture/grasp. Additionally, the verb has a connotation of overpowering someone/something when it is used with sentient objects (people, cities, kings, etc).

The word is certainly sometimes used (in respect to persons/cities) of taking hold on them in a forcible manner, absolutely. In this case it is used of the man because a man instigates the sexual act; women do not. It is not referring to rape: if it were, the word used merely three verses prior (chazaq) would have been used.

You can go to this link and read Gesenius' lexicon entry:

Hebrew Lexicon :: H8610 (KJV)

Here are the meanings that taphas can have:

to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
(Qal)
to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
(Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
(Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

You'll note that niphal refers to when taphas has occurred to an object. What does it mean to an object to be experiencing taphas? It means to be seized / arrested / caught / taken / captured. When taphas is used in reference to a girl, she has been seized / arrested / caught / taken / captured.

Right. Any one of these uses refers to a man instigating sexual relations.

These words indicate that the object has been physically restrained outside of their control (seized, arrested, caught, taken, captured). Thus, we know when taphas is used to refer to a girl in Deuteronomy, that the girl has been restrained outside of her control.

The meaning depends upon the context of the situation. When a man and a woman have sexual intercourse the man is in control of the intercourse - that is why the word is used.

We see this when taphas is used in other places of the bible:

Those are passages referring to enemy cities, not sexual intercourse. Again, the context of the passage depends upon the meaning of the word. You can't cite a passage about enemy cities and then say that the word has the same meaning when dealing with sexual intercourse.

I hope you can see why the term "seize" does not mean the things which you and Jeremy have asserted (seduction or mutually desired interaction).

I would never claim that it did. I would only claim that it means that the man instigates the sexual intercourse which is what normally happens when a man and a woman have intercourse.

That's why better translations do not stop at the term "seize", but instead use the term "rape."

We've been through this before. The better translations are the NASB, ESV, NRSV, etc., and they do not use the term "rape." The translations that do are few and are doing a serious disservice to Holy Scripture.

You have moved the goalposts. Your original remark was that the bible said adulthood starts at twenty. Now you are using terms like "the closest Scripture comes," and "I thin it is fair to say." I'm not interested in what is fair for you to say... I'm interested in your original statement that the bible declares individuals adults at twenty.

And I stand by my original statement. Obviously if God is not going to punish those under twenty for some pretty serious crimes (such as worshipping the golden calf, etc.), then he must think they're not accountable. I will go ahead and stand by my statement that Scripture says that adulthood starts at twenty.

Again, you are wrong. The bible shows that the patriarchs married their wives at the onset of puberty and before.

"There are two opinions in the Midrash as to how old Rebecca was at the time of her marriage. According to the traditional counting cited by Rashi, Isaac was 37 years old at the time of the Binding of Isaac; Sarah, who gave birth to Isaac when she was 90, died immediately after the binding when she was 127 years old, making Isaac around 37 at that time. News of Rebecca's birth reached Abraham immediately after that event. Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebecca,[7] making Rebecca 3 years old at the time of her marriage.[8] According to the second opinion, Rebecca was 14 years old at the time of their marriage." -- Rebecca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Midrash is not the Bible, it is a Jewish interpretation of it. And the Jews were often dead wrong in their interpretation, as the Pharisees and the Sadducees plainly show for all to see. The Bible says nowhere that the patriarchs married their wives "at the onset of puberty and before." I challenge you to show me one passage in Scripture where it says otherwise.

 

[Achilles6129]

I said that translations using the term "rape" are mostly modern, and those not using "rape" are [/b]mostly[/b] older. That you only cite three modern translations sticking with seize rather than rape is proof of what I say.

Well, let's see. Here's a website with a bunch of translations:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22&version=KJ21

For convenience' sake I will bold everything that uses rape (or a word which might give that connotation).

Let's see how it stacks up:

21st Century KJV: 'lay hold on her'
ASV: 'lay hold on her'
AMP: 'seizes her'
CEB: 'grabs her'
CJB: 'grabs her'
CEV: 'talks her'
Darby: 'lay hold on her'
Douay-Rheims 1899: 'taking her'
ERV (Easy-to-Read Version): 'force her'
ESV: 'seizes her'
ESV(UK): 'seizes her'
EXB: 'forces her'
1599 Geneva: 'take her'
GW: 'rapes'
GNT: 'raping'
HCSB: 'rapes'
JUB: 'lays hold'
KJV: 'lay hold'
AKJV: 'lay hold'
LEB: 'seizes'
TLB: 'rapes'
MSG: 'rapes'
NOG: 'rapes'
NAB: 'seizes'
NASB: 'seizes'
NCV: 'forces'
NET: 'rapes'
NIRV: 'rapes'
NIV: 'rapes'
NIV(UK): 'rapes'
NKJV: 'seizes'
NLV: 'takes'
NLT: 'has intercourse'
NRSV: 'seizes'
NRSV(A): 'seizes'
NRSV(AC): 'seizes'
NRSV(C): 'seizes'
OJB: 'lay hold'
RSV: 'seizes'
RSV(CE): 'seizes'
VOICE: 'forces'
WEB: 'grabs'
WYC: 'taketh'
YLT: 'caught'

I count 14 translations that use rape or a word that might give that connotation (I even gave you the YLT even though "caught" could be construed differently). There are 30 translations which do not use rape or a term that might give that connotation.

It seems that most Biblical scholars are not on your side. Note that many of these translations are also modern (such as the NLT, the ESV, the NASB, the NRSV, and so on), though I suppose it depends on what you define as "modern."

That is very silly. The bible has been translated for over a thousand years... the idea that the King James version from the seventeenth century is the "only real old translation" is ludicrous.

There are far more Biblical translations in modern times than there were in ancient times. The printing press made this possible. I would think that this would be obvious.

What you say and what is reality doesn't match up (again). In all of the United States (not just Baptists), the Holman Christian Study Bible is more popular than the NASB. Additionally, it is the sixth most used bible, which I suppose makes it "very widely used".
Top Ten Bible Translations in the United States - ThomRainer.com

I think it would be wise for you to reference what you say before doing so. It would save you from being incorrect.

I'm not incorrect. I don't think that 6th on the list (or 7th, if you count unit sales) in 2012 means that that translation is very popular:

The Most Popular and Fastest Growing Bible Translation Isn't What You Think It Is | Gleanings | ChristianityToday.com

When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.
The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.

Note that this article is from 2014 as well.

The Hebrew term "taphas" refers to the girl having been taken / captured / seized / arrested in order that the man can have sexual relations with her. How a girl can be captured for sex and that not be rape, perhaps you can explain.

As I've explained by now several times, the term is used in reference to a man taking a woman for intercourse. This is because a man instigates and performs the sexual act. I also notice you chose to use the word "captured" instead of something like "take," which is clearly what the word means in this context.

An engaged woman (betrothed) was considered the property of her betrothed husband. He has already paid the bride price to the father (purchased the woman).

He in no way purchased the woman from the father but simply gave him a gift in return for making the woman a part of his family. She is leaving her father's family and becoming a part of someone else's. She is not considered the property of her husband, she is simply considered a part of his family.

And yes, because verses 23-24 handle the consequences of both consensual and unconsensual sex of an engaged girl (that takes care of all possibilities), we know that the verses we're debating aren't discussing an engaged girl. Thus, the verses we are debating are explicitly referring to a girl who is the property of her father, not yet engaged.

Right, a girl who is still a part of her father's family.

As we've seen, the translations using the term "rape" are doing so rightfully.

Considering I counted only 14 out of 44 that did so above I think that assessment needs to be called into serious question.

Furthermore, I don't think you've demonstrated that you are in a position to knowledgeably critique them.

Anyone can look up the meanings of words in lexicons and compare versions. Therefore, anyone with access to these tools in fact is in a position to critique them.

However, we can both agree that the Contemporary English Version gets it very wrong here.

The CEV is a paraphrase. The translators simply didn't think the passage was referring to rape and translated it accordingly.

Here's a thorough review of the CEV that shows how badly it compares to others. I think especially concerning is that it was translated by only three people with no credentials.
Contemporary English Version

No translation is perfect and should be trusted to accurately translate every passage of the Bible. I'm was quoting the CEV simply to show that you can pick any translation you want to make a passage say what you want it to say - the way you do when you use the NIV specifically for this passage.

I think that it is unfruitful to assume how a prepubescent girl might act three-thousand years ago, in a culture you hardly understand, if she were raped. That you believe you are capable of doing so reveals that you may need to learn some intellectual humility. Furthermore, it is impossible to catch / find / discover a rapist without his victim.

It's not talking about pre-pubescent girls as has already been covered. You have given absolutely no Biblical evidence to the contrary.

In addition, you may wish to tell the police it's impossible to catch a rapist without the victim. I think they do it all the time

Your link will not open.

Just look at an interlinear for the passage, then.

Yep, there's the law for consensual sex with a young girl. The seducer simply pays the bride price, and the father decides whether to give him the girl. This only adds to the evidence that the verses we are discussing are about unconsensual sex with a young girl (otherwise they are redundant and contradictory). Thank you for bringing this verse up, I kept thinking that Jeremy would and he never did.

The passage in Deuteronomy is simply another passage addressing the same topic. This is done many times with many topics in Deuteronomy, which is why it is referred to as the "second law."

 

[Achilles6129]

You'll note the differences if it is consensual versus not. If it is not, then the rapist must marry her and cannot divorce her. That's not the case with seduction.

The two laws are talking about the same thing: one is the expansion of the other. The woman can choose whether or not to marry the man in both situations. Obviously the father is not going to force his daughter to marry someone, so under normal conditions the woman herself could choose whether or not she wished to be married.

Also, you'll note that what Jeremy wishes "seize" to mean is demonstrated in Exodus 22:16. This is yet more evidence that Yahweh commands male rapists to marry their female victims.

The fact that slightly different words are used doesn't mean the passages are talking about different things. As I said, Deuteronomy is an expansion of the rest of the Torah. Saying that a man seduces a woman or that a man instigates a sexual act is really the same thing.

We agree on that and likely always have.

Evidently we have not. The reason I quoted the passage was because you said:

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.

My point is that there is no "death sentence romp" unless she is betrothed. We're talking about a woman who is not engaged in the passage under discussion, which means she doesn't face any sort of "death sentence romp" regardless, per Ex. 22:16-17.

 

[BL2KTN]

The word is certainly sometimes used (in respect to persons/cities) of taking hold on them in a forcible manner, absolutely. In this case it is used of the man because a man instigates the sexual act; women do not. It is not referring to rape: if it were, the word used merely three verses prior (chazaq) would have been used.

You can go to this link and read Gesenius' lexicon entry:

Hebrew Lexicon :: H8610 (KJV)

The reason that taphas is probably used is to signify that the girl is caught / detained / taken / captured in addition to rape. Regardless, we've already seen that taphas means the girl is being held against her will. Your link is the same as previously.

Right. Any one of these uses refers to a man instigating sexual relations.

There is not a single definition in that list that says that or even comes close. You are now doing what I warned you about - using your knowledge to prove yourself right rather than using your knowledge to earnestly discover what is right. When presented with all the clear, similar definitions of taphas, you insert a new definition for the term which does not exist.

The meaning depends upon the context of the situation. When a man and a woman have sexual intercourse the man is in control of the intercourse - that is why the word is used.

Ummm... no. Women can have control during sex. Furthermore, as we have seen, taphas refers to capturing / arresting when used with an individual.

Those are passages referring to enemy cities, not sexual intercourse. Again, the context of the passage depends upon the meaning of the word. You can't cite a passage about enemy cities and then say that the word has the same meaning when dealing with sexual intercourse.

It would be impossible for me to find a passage in which taphas is used for sexual intercourse (as you wish it to be), because the term has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with capturing / taking / arresting / seizing. That is why it is followed in the verse by the Hebrew "and has sex with her". She is captured / taken / arrested / detained / seized, and then has nonconsensual sex because she has been captured. This is known as rape.

I would never claim that it did. I would only claim that it means that the man instigates the sexual intercourse which is what normally happens when a man and a woman have intercourse.

I do not think you know very much about sex. Taphas refers to the woman being captured, not to sex being instigated. As for instigation of sex, men and women both instigate sex because it is pleasing to both.

We've been through this before. The better translations are the NASB, ESV, NRSV, etc., and they do not use the term "rape." The translations that do are few and are doing a serious disservice to Holy Scripture.

I do not care whether you believe the NASB, ESV, NRSV, or any other bibles to be better. I have shown that bibles which use the term "rape" are highly regarded by people who have credentials. You do not. Instead, you are an individual who will create new definitions for 2,500 year old Hebrew words if it suits your purpose.

And I stand by my original statement. Obviously if God is not going to punish those under twenty for some pretty serious crimes (such as worshipping the golden calf, etc.), then he must think they're not accountable. I will go ahead and stand by my statement that Scripture says that adulthood starts at twenty.

Scripture does not, and your previous post admitted such. That Yahweh forbade those who had been on the census (minus Joshua and Caleb in contradictory accounts) from entering a geographic territory is not an example of scripture saying "adulthood starts here."

The Midrash is not the Bible, it is a Jewish interpretation of it. And the Jews were often dead wrong in their interpretation, as the Pharisees and the Sadducees plainly show for all to see. The Bible says nowhere that the patriarchs married their wives "at the onset of puberty and before." I challenge you to show me one passage in Scripture where it says otherwise.

The Midrash is simply counting the numbers given by the bible. Rebecca was between three and fourteen years old when she was married to a much older Isaac. Your contention that Israel saw an earlier period in which men married women later than the onset of puberty is unfounded. I have given you strong, strong evidence to the contrary, and you have provided no evidence in favor.

Well, let's see. Here's a website with a bunch of translations:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...2&version=KJ21

For convenience' sake I will bold everything that uses rape (or a word which might give that connotation).

Let's see how it stacks up:

You may bold every time a translation uses the term "seize" as well. If a woman is "seized", and we know the term used for "seized" means seized / caught / kidnapped / taken / arrested, then we know that one who is seized for the purposes of sex is being held against her will. This is known as rape.

I count 14 translations that use rape or a word that might give that connotation (I even gave you the YLT even though "caught" could be construed differently). There are 30 translations which do not use rape or a term that might give that connotation.

It seems that most Biblical scholars are not on your side. Note that many of these translations are also modern (such as the NLT, the ESV, the NASB, the NRSV, and so on), though I suppose it depends on what you define as "modern."

To seize a woman who is not your property and then have sex with her is rape. I am sorry that you fail to understand the term "seize."

There are far more Biblical translations in modern times than there were in ancient times. The printing press made this possible. I would think that this would be obvious.

Here is but a small list of older translations: Wycliffe Bible, Gutenberg Bible, Linacre Bible, 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus, Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Matthew-Tyndale Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Rheims Bible, Douway-Rheims, Bible, King James Bible, English Revised Version. Most of these had multiple editions. That's just a list of protestant English translations from about 1500 to 1900... four-hundred years.

I'm not incorrect. I don't think that 6th on the list (or 7th, if you count unit sales) in 2012 means that that translation is very popular:

The Most Popular and Fastest Growing Bible Translation Isn't What You Think It Is | Gleanings | ChristianityToday.com

It is when the bible you touted as being widely used is seventh on the list, and when another version you've touted is much farther down. And then you give us a link that shows how much the KJV is used privately, as if that proves the sixth most purchased bible is not widely used... yeesh.

This is how you really hurt your credibility for wanting the truth. When you're shown that you are absolutely wrong - that a bible you say is more popular than another is definitively not - and yet you will not just concede the point and move on... it makes me question responding to you any further. If you have such a need to be right that you will argue in favor of an obviously, demonstrably wrong point is not a good sign for discussing anything of greater difficulty.

Note that this article is from 2014 as well.

I'm not going to search the internet for sales rankings of bible translations in every year you desire. I showed that the HCSB was a better seller than the bibles you tout (while saying the HCSB is not widely used) as of two years ago. That is more than sufficient to show you are ridiculously wrong. You were just wrong until you tried to argue the point in the face of sales numbers... now you're ridiculously wrong.

As I've explained by now several times, the term is used in reference to a man taking a woman for intercourse. This is because a man instigates and performs the sexual act. I also notice you chose to use the word "captured" instead of something like "take," which is clearly what the word means in this context.

You do not get to invent new definitions for 2,500 year old words. And, given that you do not have any credentials in Hebrew whatsoever, you do not get to tell us that taphas means "take" and consensual sex in contrast to what it always means in every other instance when used with individuals. It means to seize / capture / arrest / detain.

He in no way purchased the woman from the father but simply gave him a gift in return for making the woman a part of his family. She is leaving her father's family and becoming a part of someone else's. She is not considered the property of her husband, she is simply considered a part of his family.

The desiring husband is required to pay the father in exchange for the woman. Call it whatever you like to make it fit better with your cultural view - nevertheless a transaction occurs.

Right, a girl who is still a part of her father's family.

I'm not sure why you even wrote this blurb.

Considering I counted only 14 out of 44 that did so above I think that assessment needs to be called into serious question.

You fail to understand what the word seize means.

Anyone can look up the meanings of words in lexicons and compare versions. Therefore, anyone with access to these tools in fact is in a position to critique them.

A lexicon does not make you a scholar capable of critically examining Hebrew. That is as stupid as telling me that a Spanish dictionary makes you able to analyze Don Quixote. Good grief...

The CEV is a paraphrase. The translators simply didn't think the passage was referring to rape and translated it accordingly.

No... they are three uncredentialed individuals who produced a highly flawed bible reviewed by an international group they refused to reveal. And, like you would expect from three laypeople, we get a verse in which the verb "talk" is given in English where there is no verb in Hebrew that even remotely means "talk".

No translation is perfect and should be trusted to accurately translate every passage of the Bible. I'm was quoting the CEV simply to show that you can pick any translation you want to make a passage say what you want it to say - the way you do when you use the NIV specifically for this passage.

Yes, you showed that one translation, out of all translations throughout history, which is roundly dismissed as the work of an unskilled trio, can be tremendously wrong. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated to you that many of the most highly esteemed translations support what I say. I have further shown you how the Hebrew works in the sentence. But, yes, you may believe that by finding a single, horribly flawed translation you have done something. You will be wrong, but you can believe that.

It's not talking about pre-pubescent girls as has already been covered. You have given absolutely no Biblical evidence to the contrary.

In addition, you may wish to tell the police it's impossible to catch a rapist without the victim. I think they do it all the time.

Every shred of evidence shows that girls were married at the onset of puberty in ancient Israel. There is no evidence that what you say is correct. I have provided you with links, I have provided with what the bible says about Rebecca, and yet you insist that what you believe is true and what I document is false. You have not given any evidence whatsoever to support what you think. No scholar that I am aware of, no historian that I am aware of, no archaeologist that I am aware of agrees with you. That you can believe something without any evidence, and in the face of all evidence, really hurts that credibility even more.

The passage in Deuteronomy is simply another passage addressing the same topic. This is done many times with many topics in Deuteronomy, which is why it is referred to as the "second law."

You can assert that, but you normally would have to give some kind of evidence in order to do so. However, you seem to think that what you say becomes reality.

The truth is that Exodus gives the law for consensual sex of an unmarried girl. Deuteronomy gives the law for unconsensual sex of an unmarried girl. As opposed to your baseless claims, I have given pages of documentation for this.

The two laws are talking about the same thing: one is the expansion of the other. The woman can choose whether or not to marry the man in both situations. Obviously the father is not going to force his daughter to marry someone, so under normal conditions the woman herself could choose whether or not she wished to be married.

You cannot have an expansion in Exodus, which is the first of the laws given. The expansion, if it were true, would have to be in Deuteronomy, which it isn't. Good lord do you even read this stuff before you post it as reality??? Stop trying to be right and start studying.

The fact that slightly different words are used doesn't mean the passages are talking about different things. As I said, Deuteronomy is an expansion of the rest of the Torah. Saying that a man seduces a woman or that a man instigates a sexual act is really the same thing.

A law governing a man seducing a girl is different than a law governing a man who seizes / captures / takes / kidnaps / arrests a girl.

Would you just please, for a moment, care about what the bible says, as opposed to what you are determined for it to say so that you can win a debate and have your own beliefs supported. Because right now, I don't think you care about really studying the bible... I think you just want it to say what you want it to say.

My point is that there is no "death sentence romp" unless she is betrothed. We're talking about a woman who is not engaged in the passage under discussion, which means she doesn't face any sort of "death sentence romp" regardless, per Ex. 22:16-17.

She faces the death sentence in that when she does get married, if she can't prove her virginity then she will be beaten with rocks until she dies.

I am very disappointed in your post. I really thought I was going to be discussing this with someone who respects the text. I now feel that I am probably discussing this with someone who absolutely requires feeling right in their own mind.

 

[TheDag]

I said that translations using the term "rape" are mostly modern, and those not using "rape" are mostly older. That you only cite three modern translations sticking with seize rather than rape is proof of what I say. Furthermore, as I've shown you about the term "taphas," that they use the term "seize" does not mean that they recognize this to be anything other than rape... it simply means they're not willing to use the controversial, but more accurate, terminology in the verse.

In your opinion.

Once again we see you do not take the time to properly read the post. The claim was made that there was a heap of translations that don't use the word rape and a link. That they only named three is not evidence they were wrong since they never claimed they were the only versions.

I think it would be wise for you to reference what you say before doing so. It would save you from being incorrect.

I think it would be wise if you properly read links before using them. Your very own link does not support the claim you made. Do you realise this? I'm guessing not. The link does not prove that Homan Christian Study Bible is the sixth most used in the US. By the way there are other countries in the world not just the US. This may come as a shock I realise but it is true. Also it isn't hard to find some more recent figures that put Holman translation tenth on the list (see link below) On that list NASB is seventh. There is also the acknowledgment that essentially there is the NIV, KJV, NKJV as the three best sellers then essentially daylight fills the next few spots before you reach others. So is it really widely used? How is widely defined? So yeah you can provide a link from 2012 that partly supports you (agrees with your statement re NASB but not Holman) or you could go with 2013 figure which is different. Or you could try for more recent figures. Or perhaps we should go back to figures from the 1600's. Truth is in the end it is not reasonable to make absolute statements based on figures that vary from year to year.

Christian Book Expo: ECPA Bible Translations Bestsellers, September 2013

The Hebrew term "taphas" refers to the girl having been taken / captured / seized / arrested in order that the man can have sexual relations with her. How a girl can be captured for sex and that not be rape, perhaps you can explain.

Well since I have already explained an alternative for seized that would not be rape perhaps you could explain.

As we've seen, the translations using the term "rape" are doing so rightfully. Furthermore, I don't think you've demonstrated that you are in a position to knowledgeably critique them.

err? really with the study you claim to have done? Explain what context includes. Then we might see if there is a reason a certain point is not being addressed.

You'll note the differences if it is consensual versus not. If it is not, then the rapist must marry her and cannot divorce her. That's not the case with seduction. Also, you'll note that what Jeremy wishes "seize" to mean is demonstrated in Exodus 22:16. This is yet more evidence that Yahweh commands male rapists to marry their female victims.

That is just your opinion. You have not explained why when a different instruction is given that it does not apply but instead is forced to marry the rapist.

If you respect the bible and what it says, I'm sure you'll review your beliefs. If you respect your own doctrines and ideologies over the bible, then I'm sure you'll continue to try to prove what you believe is what the bible teaches.

You do not appear to be open to the possibility of being wrong.

Because I tried to address your points, and because you feel I failed to do so, let's try in a different way. Succinctly state your point and I will do my best to reply to it. Make it direct, concise, and unambiguous.

Well I must admit I did not make all the points I would have liked to because someone else made some of them so I didn't see the need to repeat them. However you did not answer them despite having quoted their post with it.

This being the official peanut gallery, I would prefer to stay here. Perhaps you can speak with a moderator about having it moved back to a more appropriate forum since (as it was for weeks).

ok then. I just figured seem as you chose to post in the other thread then you were happy to discuss it there and you did say you would respond in there after the debate was over. I guess I just find it annoying the posts don't appear straight away like I'm used to. First world problem!

 

[Achilles6129]

The reason that taphas is probably used is to signify that the girl is caught / detained / taken / captured in addition to rape.

There is no word for "rape" in the passage under discussion, so claiming that it is "rape" is a stretch already.

Regardless, we've already seen that taphas means the girl is being held against her will.

We've seen nothing of the sort. I pointed out previous how "taphas" is used with playing the harp and handling the Torah. When used with an enemy individual or city it can certainly have a forcible connotation; however, there are other connotations, which I have presented, where it is not forcible in the slightest. The word simply does not mean what you are trying to say that it means. I notice that when you quote the meaning of the word you almost always leave out "take, lay hold of." Not very objective of you.

Let's look at a few more examples:

"Someone will even seize (taphas) a relative,
a member of the clan, saying,
“You have a cloak;
you shall be our leader,
and this heap of ruins
shall be under your rule.”" Isa. 3:6 (NRSV)

You will notice in this passage the word is used with family and there is no violent connotation or anything forcible taking place. The examples you cite are all used with enemy people and enemy cities. An Israelite woman is hardly an enemy person or city and so your proposed translation is unnecessary.

"The priests did not say, “Where is the Lord?”
Those who handle (taphas) the law did not know me;
the rulers[a] transgressed against me;
the prophets prophesied by Baal,
and went after things that do not profit." Jer. 2:8 (NRSV)

Here the word is used for something as mundane as simply handling the law, hardly a forcible expression.

"Advance, O horses,
and dash madly, O chariots!
Let the warriors go forth:
Ethiopia[a] and Put who carry (taphas) the shield,
the Ludim, who draw[b] (taphas) the bow." Jer. 46:9 (NRSV)

"Cut off from Babylon the sower,
and the wielder (taphas) of the sickle in time of harvest;
because of the destroying sword
all of them shall return to their own people,
and all of them shall flee to their own land." Jer. 50:16 (NRSV)

"and down from their ships
come all that handle (taphas) the oar.
The mariners and all the pilots of the sea
stand on the shore" Ezek. 27:29 (NRSV)

"Then all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know
that I am the Lord
because you[a] were a staff of reed
to the house of Israel;
7 when they grasped (taphas) you with the hand, you broke,
and tore all their shoulders;
and when they leaned on you, you broke,
and made all their legs unsteady." Ezek. 29:6-7 (NRSV)

Notice that this passage above actually uses taphas in the exact way Jeremy was suggesting: taking someone by the hand.

There is not a single definition in that list that says that or even comes close. You are now doing what I warned you about - using your knowledge to prove yourself right rather than using your knowledge to earnestly discover what is right. When presented with all the clear, similar definitions of taphas, you insert a new definition for the term which does not exist.

"Taking," or "laying hold of," would both be applicable in this case. Actually, really nearly any one of the words would do if it were simply interpreted correctly.

The problem is you're using the words to connote violence when they connote nothing of the sort in this context. Even the word "seize" does not have to connote sexual violence in the slightest: you're adding in the connotation yourself because you believe it refers to rape. For example, I can hug someone and it can be said that I've "seized" them, even though it was a perfectly innocent hug. As said before, this word only connotes violence when they're talking about enemy people or cities. This passage is talking about neither.

Ummm... no. Women can have control during sex.

"Can," but not usually. Usually the man is the instigating party (certainly so in ancient Israel), and usually the man gives the sex.

It would be impossible for me to find a passage in which taphas is used for sexual intercourse (as you wish it to be), because the term has nothing to do with sex.

Well, it's used in this passage with sexual intercourse which means it clearly does have something to do with sex. However, you are correct in that this is the only passage where it's used of sexual intercourse in Scripture.

I do not care whether you believe the NASB, ESV, NRSV, or any other bibles to be better. I have shown that bibles which use the term "rape" are highly regarded by people who have credentials. You do not.

You've shown nothing of the sort. Like I've said before, no translation is perfect for every single passage in Scripture. The NASB, ESV, and NRSV are all highly regarded by people who have credentials (along with some other translations).

What Bible Should I Own (Dan Wallace) - Parchment and Pen | Parchment and Pen

But there are other good study Bibles, too. The ESV is an excellent, literary translation with understated elegance, in keeping with the KJV and RSV. And its study Bible, with articles and notes, is excellent. The NIV Study Bible has very good notes and a very readable translation, but it interprets a bit too much for my tastes. The NRSV is a very good translation, though its stance on gender inclusivism sometimes mars the beauty of the translation and is even, at times, misleading

Also:

A Discussion of Bible Translations

Scripture does not, and your previous post admitted such. That Yahweh forbade those who had been on the census (minus Joshua and Caleb in contradictory accounts) from entering a geographic territory is not an example of scripture saying "adulthood starts here."

Like I said, if those under twenty were really accountable for an egregious sin then God would have punished them as such. He must believe that they were not accountable for their actions. So, clearly, something very important happens at the age of twenty. I'll go ahead and claim that adulthood starts there, and I'd have to say that's pretty good Biblical evidence to support it.

The Midrash is simply counting the numbers given by the bible.

Oh really? Care to show me those numbers?

The Midrash is nothing but ancient Jewish interpretation mixed with legend. It has nothing to do with an accurate assessment of Scripture.

Your contention that Israel saw an earlier period in which men married women later than the onset of puberty is unfounded. I have given you strong, strong evidence to the contrary, and you have provided no evidence in favor.

I am well aware girls used to get married at a very young age (they did so here in America too, as I pointed out earlier), but that does not mean that it was God's intention or that Scripture teaches such. I pointed out that those under twenty were not accountable for their sins in the Exodus and thus that that indicated that adulthood starts at the age of twenty. This would indicate that God wishes for women to get married beginning at the age of twenty.

You may bold every time a translation uses the term "seize" as well. If a woman is "seized", and we know the term used for "seized" means seized / caught / kidnapped / taken / arrested, then we know that one who is seized for the purposes of sex is being held against her will. This is known as rape.

I needn't do any such thing because the meaning of "seize" depends totally upon the context. When I hug someone I "seize" them, but not in a negative fashion. You've already interpreted the passage in a negative fashion so for you the term "seize" has violent overtones; for me, it doesn't.

Here is but a small list of older translations: Wycliffe Bible, Gutenberg Bible, Linacre Bible, 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus, Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Matthew-Tyndale Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Rheims Bible, Douway-Rheims, Bible, King James Bible, English Revised Version. Most of these had multiple editions. That's just a list of protestant English translations from about 1500 to 1900... four-hundred years.

Again, I suppose it depends on what you would define as "modern," but I count 14 translations, and I'm guessing most of those weren't very widely read or used. In our modern times we have far more translations and far more available access for them. Just go to any online Bible and see.

It is when the bible you touted as being widely used is seventh on the list, and when another version you've touted is much farther down. And then you give us a link that shows how much the KJV is used privately, as if that proves the sixth most purchased bible is not widely used... yeesh.

The HCSB is not widely used in the slightest. You'll notice the link said that 55% of the Bible's used are KJV and 19% were NIV. The rest were in the single digits. That hardly qualifies as being "widely used." The HCSB wasn't even published until 2004; the NASB was published back in 1971, so obviously it has sold many more copies.

I suggest you look at the statistics that I presented and stop drawing your final conclusions from a chart in 2012.

And, given that you do not have any credentials in Hebrew whatsoever, you do not get to tell us that taphas means "take" and consensual sex in contrast to what it always means in every other instance when used with individuals. It means to seize / capture / arrest / detain.

Like I said, in this day and age anyone is qualified to determine whether or not a word has been accurately translated; assuming, of course, that they have accessed the appropriate sources. I showed above how taphas is used with other individuals (and objects) in a non-violent sense. I also showed how in each case that taphas is used in a forcible sense it is referring to an enemy city or person - which an Israelite woman is not.

A lexicon does not make you a scholar capable of critically examining Hebrew. That is as stupid as telling me that a Spanish dictionary makes you able to analyze Don Quixote. Good grief...

A lexicon combined with other references makes anyone capable of ascertaining the meaning of a word.

No... they are three credentialed individuals who produced a highly flawed bible reviewed by an international group they refused to reveal. And, like you would expect from three laypeople, we get a verse in which the verb "talk" is given in English where there is no verb in Hebrew that even remotely means "talk".

It doesn't matter. I didn't say the translation was accurate, I quoted the passage to show that you can quote selectively from various versions and get them to say what you like. In your case, you don't have the majority of the versions on your side when it comes to "rape," so you're forced to selectively quote-mine various translations (like the NIV and the HCSB).

The truth is that Exodus gives the law for consensual sex of an unmarried girl. Deuteronomy gives the law for unconsensual sex of an unmarried girl. As opposed to your baseless claims, I have given pages of documentation for this.

The name "Deuteronomy" means "second law" in Greek. Deuteronomy is an expansion upon and an elaboration of the Torah. It has many passages in it when are spoken of elsehwere in the Torah.

You cannot have an expansion in Exodus, which is the first of the laws given. The expansion, if it were true, would have to be in Deuteronomy, which it isn't.

The expansion/elaboration is in Deuteronomy - the laws are meant to be cross-referenced together.

She faces the death sentence in that when she does get married, if she can't prove her virginity then she will be beaten with rocks until she dies.

You're not paying very close attention. Consensual sex prior to a betrothal will result in her marrying the man she had sex with, provided she is willing (her father gives her to him). She won't be stoned for such a thing should she marry another man because the law on stoning in Deut. 22:13-21 only applies to women who have intercourse while they are already betrothed (counted as marriage in Judaism).

 

[BL2KTN]

In your opinion.

Once again we see you do not take the time to properly read the post. The claim was made that there was a heap of translations that don't use the word rape and a link. That they only named three is not evidence they were wrong since they never claimed they were the only versions.

We've seen the list in this thread. There are about ten translations that use the term "rape" and they are only modern. There are about twenty that use the term "seize" which is accurate but not fully expressive of the term taphas and how it indicates being overtaken. There are far fewer that use some other phraseology.

Please understand that there being ten translations calling this rape is more impressive than twenty-or-so that call it a seizure followed by sex. Understand that those ten translations, composed of teams of credentialed scholars, felt so strongly that this referred to rape, that they were willing to let the bible say that rapists must marry their victims. The translations which use the term "seize" do so with some ambiguity in the term... and it is a much safer thing to do that is less likely to cause controversy, harm sales, garner criticism, etc. Yet, even with that less risky terminology, we still know that to be seized is to be taken by force. Taphas refers to being overwhelmed physically, to be captured / seized / kidnapped / arrested / detained... and when one is overwhelmed physically prior to sex, it simply must mean rape.

I think it would be wise if you properly read links before using them. Your very own link does not support the claim you made. Do you realise this? I'm guessing not. The link does not prove that Homan Christian Study Bible is the sixth most used in the US. By the way there are other countries in the world not just the US. This may come as a shock I realise but it is true. Also it isn't hard to find some more recent figures that put Holman translation tenth on the list (see link below) On that list NASB is seventh. There is also the acknowledgment that essentially there is the NIV, KJV, NKJV as the three best sellers then essentially daylight fills the next few spots before you reach others. So is it really widely used? How is widely defined? So yeah you can provide a link from 2012 that partly supports you (agrees with your statement re NASB but not Holman) or you could go with 2013 figure which is different. Or you could try for more recent figures. Or perhaps we should go back to figures from the 1600's. Truth is in the end it is not reasonable to make absolute statements based on figures that vary from year to year.

Christian Book Expo: ECPA Bible Translations Bestsellers, September 2013

Achilles said two things about the HCSB. One, he said it is not widely used in comparison to other translations. My answer to that was to present him sales numbers from 2012 in which the HCSB sold more than the translations he was touting as more regularly used. Second, he asserted that it was not a good translation. I presented him with knowledgeable reviews showing that it is a very good translation.

Well since I have already explained an alternative for seized that would not be rape perhaps you could explain.

I don't need you to provide an alternative meaning for an English term. I need you to redefine taphas, a 2,500 year-old word that means to be overwhelmed by physical force when used with a personal direct object. Taphas means to be seized, taken, kidnapped, captured, arrested, detained when it is used in conjunction with a person.

err? really with the study you claim to have done? Explain what context includes. Then we might see if there is a reason a certain point is not being addressed.

See the above.

That is just your opinion. You have not explained why when a different instruction is given that it does not apply but instead is forced to marry the rapist.

I do not understand these sentences. Please reword it.

You do not appear to be open to the possibility of being wrong.

I would love to be wrong. If I were wrong, that would be exciting! Thus far, I do not see compelling evidence to think that. However, if you could provide evidence for your claim (that taphas means something other than its normal definition), then I would be very pleased.

Well I must admit I did not make all the points I would have liked to because someone else made some of them so I didn't see the need to repeat them. However you did not answer them despite having quoted their post with it.

I do my best to fully answer everything someone posts, including quoting them beforehand. If I did not sufficiently answer something, feel free to restate it.

ok then. I just figured seem as you chose to post in the other thread then you were happy to discuss it there and you did say you would respond in there after the debate was over. I guess I just find it annoying the posts don't appear straight away like I'm used to. First world problem!

Feel free to petition a moderator for the thread to be moved back. In the meantime, I think someone forgot to put a design in the foam of my banana latte... so I understand your first word problems. Now if I could just get wi-fi in my kitchen; stupid giant house.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I guess I just find it annoying the posts don't appear straight away like I'm used to. First world problem!

Hi Dag,

It would be less work for me if this thread was elsewhere. The problem is that it would have to be moved to a forum appropriate for the topic; we have those in General Theology. The problem is that GT is Christian only, so that would exclude those who do not identify themselves as Christian.

I could put it in the Philosophy sub forum of Discussion and Debate if you guys would like to proceed unmoderated let me know. However, keep in mind that if things get out of hand, you will be subject to the report system. In this forum we tend to be able to keep a lid on stuff before it gets out of hand. We try and keep Formal Debate and this PG forum as "report free zones".

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[TheDag]

We've seen the list in this thread. There are about ten translations that use the term "rape" and they are only modern. There are about twenty that use the term "seize" which is accurate but not fully expressive of the term taphas and how it indicates being overtaken. There are far fewer that use some other phraseology.

Yet the claim made was that most do call it rape which has been proven false.

and when one is overwhelmed physically prior to sex, it simply must mean rape.

No it doesn't and I described a scenario earlier where it is not rape. Rape is not consensual.

Achilles said two things about the HCSB. One, he said it is not widely used in comparison to other translations. My answer to that was to present him sales numbers from 2012 in which the HCSB sold more than the translations he was touting as more regularly used. Second, he asserted that it was not a good translation. I presented him with knowledgeable reviews showing that it is a very good translation.

You are ignoring the conversation. I showed evidence that the HCSB had fewer sales than NASB. You also claimed it was six most read according to your source. That claim is also false and is not supported by the evidence you provided. If you are capable of making mistake on something simple like that how can you be trusted on more complex matters to understand things properly?

See the above.

The above did not answer the question

I would love to be wrong. If I were wrong, that would be exciting! Thus far, I do not see compelling evidence to think that. However, if you could provide evidence for your claim (that taphas means something other than its normal definition), then I would be very pleased.

I never said you should have been convinced by now just that your attitude seems to be just as closed as achilles.
Mind you I have not seen anything either that is convincing. I am one of those rare creatures in that I have actually changed my view on a matter because of a discussion on CF. I reckon there are very few who could say that.

Feel free to petition a moderator for the thread to be moved back. In the meantime, I think someone forgot to put a design in the foam of my banana latte... so I understand your first word problems. Now if I could just get wi-fi in my kitchen; stupid giant house.

well if there is no design then apparently that means they don't really care about the quality of their coffee. Well thats what I was told in training. If you'd like to come and visit then if I am able to access a machine I will make you a latte with a design! Thanks for sharing my pain!

 

[BL2KTN]

There is no word for "rape" in the passage under discussion, so claiming that it is "rape" is a stretch already.

There is the term taphas, which means to take by force / kidnap / seize / detain / arrest, followed by sex. If sex after kidnap / seizure / detainment / arrest isn't rape, then I don't know what is.

We've seen nothing of the sort. I pointed out previous how "taphas" is used with playing the harp and handling the Torah. When used with an enemy individual or city it can certainly have a forcible connotation; however, there are other connotations, which I have presented, where it is not forcible in the slightest. The word simply does not mean what you are trying to say that it means. I notice that when you quote the meaning of the word you almost always leave out "take, lay hold of." Not very objective of you.

Let's look at a few more examples:

Straight from the Hebrew lexicon:
to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
(Qal)
to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
(Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
(Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

If is used for people, it means to be seized, arrested, caught, taken, captured. If it is used with a tool, instrument, etc, it means to be weilded, used skillfully, or grasped.

You will notice in this passage the word is used with family and there is no violent connotation or anything forcible taking place. The examples you cite are all used with enemy people and enemy cities. An Israelite woman is hardly an enemy person or city and so your proposed translation is unnecessary.

There is no forcible connotation to you because you do not understand the word taphas. If you did, you would understand the desperation and agony the word portrays here. The area is in ruin, desolation, and disarray. The sentence refers to a relative grabbing someone forcefully, seizing them, and pronouncing them a leader of this ruination simply because they have a cloak. It is Hebrew irony laced with emotional terms... lost on English readers such as yourself.

Here the word is used for something as mundane as simply handling the law, hardly a forcible expression.

A better translation would say "wield the law" here instead. However, when taphas is used in reference to objects, it means to wield / handle / play them. That is not how it is used when people are the direct object. When people are the direct object, it means to seize / take / capture / kidnap / arrest / detain.

Notice that this passage above actually uses taphas in the exact way Jeremy was suggesting: taking someone by the hand.

Note that in that passage, when the person broke the hand holding them, it ripped their shoulders off. You think that might be why taphas is used there? You don't rip someone's shoulders off with a normal hand-hold.

"Taking," or "laying hold of," would both be applicable in this case. Actually, really nearly any one of the words would do if it were simply interpreted correctly.

The problem is you're using the words to connote violence when they connote nothing of the sort in this context. Even the word "seize" does not have to connote sexual violence in the slightest: you're adding in the connotation yourself because you believe it refers to rape. For example, I can hug someone and it can be said that I've "seized" them, even though it was a perfectly innocent hug. As said before, this word only connotes violence when they're talking about enemy people or cities. This passage is talking about neither.

The term "taphas", the word in question, refers to kidnapping / capturing / seizing, when it refers to people. Those are the ideas behind it every time it is used, whether it is translated as seizing, kidnapping, capturing, taking, etc. Every time the feeling behind the word should be overtaking by physical means. Unless you have new material to counter that, I'm done arguing this point. I have provided compelling evidence, matching the understanding of Hebrew scholars and translators; you have provided your own unsubstantiated, uncredentialed opinion.

Have you taken classes in Hebrew? If so, what level?

"Can," but not usually. Usually the man is the instigating party (certainly so in ancient Israel), and usually the man gives the sex.

The man gives the sex? What the heck is this? And don't even pretend to be knowledgeable about which spouse in an ancient culture instigated sex more often. Good grief...

Well, it's used in this passage with sexual intercourse which means it clearly does have something to do with sex. However, you are correct in that this is the only passage where it's used of sexual intercourse in Scripture.

It isn't used for sexual intercourse here. It is used for what it is always used for... the girl is seized/captured/kidnapped/taken and the man has sex with her. Taphas sets up the next phrase about sex by letting us see she has been taken by force. It is unconsensual.

You've shown nothing of the sort. Like I've said before, no translation is perfect for every single passage in Scripture. The NASB, ESV, and NRSV are all highly regarded by people who have credentials (along with some other translations).

What Bible Should I Own (Dan Wallace) - Parchment and Pen | Parchment and Pen

One of the bibles that uses the term "rape" and which I am saying has impressive credentials is the NIV. Are you saying that the NIV is not highly respected and credentialed?

Like I said, if those under twenty were really accountable for an egregious sin then God would have punished them as such. He must believe that they were not accountable for their actions. So, clearly, something very important happens at the age of twenty. I'll go ahead and claim that adulthood starts there, and I'd have to say that's pretty good Biblical evidence to support it.

Goal post moved again. First you said "the bible says adulthood starts at twenty," then you said, "the closest scripture comes to saying." When I called you on it you switched back to "scripture says," and now you're back to "I'd have to say that's pretty good biblical evidence to support it."

The bible doesn't say when adulthood begins. It knows no concept.

Oh really? Care to show me those numbers?

The Midrash is nothing but ancient Jewish interpretation mixed with legend. It has nothing to do with an accurate assessment of Scripture.

From a previous source I provided in this thread to you already:
"Isaac was 37 years old at the time of the Binding of Isaac; Sarah, who gave birth to Isaac when she was 90, died immediately after the binding when she was 127 years old, making Isaac around 37 at that time. News of Rebecca's birth reached Abraham immediately after that event. Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebecca, making Rebecca 3 years old at the time of her marriage."

I am well aware girls used to get married at a very young age (they did so here in America too, as I pointed out earlier), but that does not mean that it was God's intention or that Scripture teaches such. I pointed out that those under twenty were not accountable for their sins in the Exodus and thus that that indicated that adulthood starts at the age of twenty. This would indicate that God wishes for women to get married beginning at the age of twenty.

That is incredibly silly. Rebecca was three. All historical / archaeological evidence points to girls being married at the onset of puberty before, and it never points to anything else. There is no scripture that supports what you say. The account in Exodus in which everyone included in the census (the sole purpose of which is to tax) is excluded from the promised land is absolutely, 100% unrelated to when a woman should be married.

I needn't do any such thing because the meaning of "seize" depends totally upon the context. When I hug someone I "seize" them, but not in a negative fashion. You've already interpreted the passage in a negative fashion so for you the term "seize" has violent overtones; for me, it doesn't.

Why are you still quibbling over an English word? The original word is taphas, and it means to seize / kidnap / capture / arrest /detain. It always indicates overwhelming force when used with a person as its direct object.

Again, I suppose it depends on what you would define as "modern," but I count 14 translations, and I'm guessing most of those weren't very widely read or used. In our modern times we have far more translations and far more available access for them. Just go to any online Bible and see.

Fourteen off the top of my head in a few hundred years in one language. Online translations are not going to often include older versions because they are outdated and antiquated. The idea that you could go to an online bible to make that determination shows that you do not fully think things through.

The HCSB is not widely used in the slightest. You'll notice the link said that 55% of the Bible's used are KJV and 19% were NIV. The rest were in the single digits. That hardly qualifies as being "widely used." The HCSB wasn't even published until 2004; the NASB was published back in 1971, so obviously it has sold many more copies.

I suggest you look at the statistics that I presented and stop drawing your final conclusions from a chart in 2012.

Your poll is cute and I don't care about it. Polls can be manipulated; hard sales numbers cannot. The HCSB sold more copies than the bibles you touted as being more widely used.

Like I said, in this day and age anyone is qualified to determine whether or not a word has been accurately translated; assuming, of course, that they have accessed the appropriate sources. I showed above how taphas is used with other individuals (and objects) in a non-violent sense. I also showed how in each case that taphas is used in a forcible sense it is referring to an enemy city or person - which an Israelite woman is not.

No they are not. The idea that unlearned, uncredentialed individuals can accurately critique translations because they have a lexicon or a dictionary is incredibly, incredibly stupid. Please, I want you to use a Spanish-English dictionary and critique the translation of Don Quixote.

A lexicon combined with other references makes anyone capable of ascertaining the meaning of a word.

Apparently not.

It doesn't matter. I didn't say the translation was accurate, I quoted the passage to show that you can quote selectively from various versions and get them to say what you like. In your case, you don't have the majority of the versions on your side when it comes to "rape," so you're forced to selectively quote-mine various translations (like the NIV and the HCSB).

Having ten separately translated texts come up with the same thing (rape) is not selectively quote-mining.

The name "Deuteronomy" means "second law" in Greek. Deuteronomy is an expansion upon and an elaboration of the Torah. It has many passages in it when are spoken of elsehwere in the Torah.

Yes. And if the law about sex with an unengaged girl in Deuteronomy were an expansion, then it would need to expand. Instead, the law in Exodus is more expansive.

Again, good grief.

The expansion/elaboration is in Deuteronomy - the laws are meant to be cross-referenced together.

No. In Exodus there are additional provisions, whereas in Deuteronomy there are not. If these are the same two laws cross-referenced, then they are contradictory in that one says the father has a choice, the other says there is no choice. One refers to seduction, one refers to physical force.

Please, stop warping the text to fit your ideology. It is disrespectful to the text. I don't even think it's divinely inspired and I have more respect for it than this.

You're not paying very close attention. Consensual sex prior to a betrothal will result in her marrying the man she had sex with, provided she is willing (her father gives her to him). She won't be stoned for such a thing should she marry another man because the law on stoning in Deut. 22:13-21 only applies to women who have intercourse while they are already betrothed (counted as marriage in Judaism).

Again, you are warping the text to fit your own views. In Exodus, the girl has no choice - it is the father's decision and his alone. She will be stoned if she has sex and then marries another person who somehow discovers she isn't a virgin (there's no good test for this, so one can only imagine the number of innocent girls beaten with rocks). In Deuteronomy, when the girl is taken by force (as opposed to seduced), there is no choice given to anybody... the man who took her by force and had sex with her must marry her.

Please, provide material to support your claims. Unsubstantiated opinion is not impressive.

 

[BL2KTN]

Yet the claim made was that most do call it rape which has been proven false.

You did not correctly read the claim. It was that mostly modern translations call it rape and mostly older translations do not. That claim is correct. The claim has never been that most use the term rape.

No it doesn't and I described a scenario earlier where it is not rape. Rape is not consensual.

If you are a young girl, kidnapped / seized / taken / captured / caught / detained / arrested and a man has sex with you, it is not consensual.

You are ignoring the conversation. I showed evidence that the HCSB had fewer sales than NASB. You also claimed it was six most read according to your source. That claim is also false and is not supported by the evidence you provided. If you are capable of making mistake on something simple like that how can you be trusted on more complex matters to understand things properly?

In 2012, HCSB had more sales than NASB. Obviously those numbers fluctuate year-to-year. However, I am completely uninterested in discussing this with you as it has nothing to do with the thread. I only brought it up with Achilles because he tried to discredit one of the translations using the term "rape" (HCSB) by saying it was not widely used. I pointed out that in 2012 (the first year I found) it sold more copies than either of his translations he was touting as mainstream. I have zero interest in debating you about Achilles' mistake.

I never said you should have been convinced by now just that your attitude seems to be just as closed as achilles.
Mind you I have not seen anything either that is convincing. I am one of those rare creatures in that I have actually changed my view on a matter because of a discussion on CF. I reckon there are very few who could say that.

Again, I'd be happy to be wrong. It would be exciting. That doesn't seem to be the case.

well if there is no design then apparently that means they don't really care about the quality of their coffee. Well thats what I was told in training. If you'd like to come and visit then if I am able to access a machine I will make you a latte with a design! Thanks for sharing my pain!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwv...eature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_3964833765

 

[Achilles6129]

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)

Here are the reasons why this cannot possibly be referring to rape:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

"“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.

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.

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)

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)

In this passage chazaq is used of the rape of a concubine.

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.

 

[Achilles6129]

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.

There is the term taphas, which means to take by force / kidnap / seize / detain / arrest, followed by sex. If sex after kidnap / seizure / detainment / arrest isn't rape, then I don't know what is.

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.

There is no forcible connotation to you because you do not understand the word taphas. If you did, you would understand the desperation and agony the word portrays here. The area is in ruin, desolation, and disarray. The sentence refers to a relative grabbing someone forcefully, seizing them, and pronouncing them a leader of this ruination simply because they have a cloak. It is Hebrew irony laced with emotional terms... lost on English readers such as yourself.

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.

A better translation would say "wield the law" here instead. However, when taphas is used in reference to objects, it means to wield / handle / play them. That is not how it is used when people are the direct object. When people are the direct object, it means to seize / take / capture / kidnap / arrest / detain.

Again, adding to the definition of the term ("kidnap"? where is that in a lexicon?). The fact that taphas can be used in a mild manner when referring to objects should tell you that it can be used in a mild manner when referring to humans as well. That doesn't mean that it has to be, only that it can.

Note that in that passage, when the person broke the hand holding them, it ripped their shoulders off. You think that might be why taphas is used there? You don't rip someone's shoulders off with a normal hand-hold.

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).

Have you taken classes in Hebrew? If so, what level?

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.

One of the bibles that uses the term "rape" and which I am saying has impressive credentials is the NIV. Are you saying that the NIV is not highly respected and credentialed?

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

From a previous source I provided in this thread to you already:
"Isaac was 37 years old at the time of the Binding of Isaac; Sarah, who gave birth to Isaac when she was 90, died immediately after the binding when she was 127 years old, making Isaac around 37 at that time. News of Rebecca's birth reached Abraham immediately after that event. Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebecca, making Rebecca 3 years old at the time of her marriage."

That is incredibly silly. Rebecca was three.

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.

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.

Having ten separately translated texts come up with the same thing (rape) is not selectively quote-mining.

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

Yes. And if the law about sex with an unengaged girl in Deuteronomy were an expansion, then it would need to expand. Instead, the law in Exodus is more expansive.

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.

If these are the same two laws cross-referenced, then they are contradictory in that one says the father has a choice, the other says there is no choice.

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.

She will be stoned if she has sex and then marries another person who somehow discovers she isn't a virgin (there's no good test for this, so one can only imagine the number of innocent girls beaten with rocks).

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.

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.

 

[TheDag]

If you are a young girl, kidnapped / seized / taken / captured / caught / detained / arrested and a man has sex with you, it is not consensual.

You have the cheek to accuse others of not reading properly yet you still have not addressed the point made. Yet you maintain that you have made good arguments. I gave an excellent example where it is not rape and so far you have just ignored it. Yet you keep repeating how you have proved this and proved that. You don't prove anything by just ignoring things. just like you ignored my question about what is and isn't context. You said see the above and did not make one single comment in the above about what context is. So many don't understand it.

In 2012, HCSB had more sales than NASB. Obviously those numbers fluctuate year-to-year. However, I am completely uninterested in discussing this with you as it has nothing to do with the thread. I only brought it up with Achilles because he tried to discredit one of the translations using the term "rape" (HCSB) by saying it was not widely used. I pointed out that in 2012 (the first year I found) it sold more copies than either of his translations he was touting as mainstream. I have zero interest in debating you about Achilles' mistake.

Yet you still read the information wrong. Information that really is very simple to understand. You claimed it was the sixth best selling bible in 2012. This was a false claim. Because it cost more the dollar sales figures were higher. For actual sales you looked at the wrong list. If you can get such simple information wrong then please tell me why anything else you say should be considered? Not being nasty but such simple mistakes on things written in clear english does not inspire confidence in more complicated matters.

 

[BL2KTN]

You have the cheek to accuse others of not reading properly yet you still have not addressed the point made. Yet you maintain that you have made good arguments. I gave an excellent example where it is not rape and so far you have just ignored it. Yet you keep repeating how you have proved this and proved that. You don't prove anything by just ignoring things. just like you ignored my question about what is and isn't context. You said see the above and did not make one single comment in the above about what context is. So many don't understand it.

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.

Yet you still read the information wrong. Information that really is very simple to understand. You claimed it was the sixth best selling bible in 2012. This was a false claim. Because it cost more the dollar sales figures were higher. For actual sales you looked at the wrong list. If you can get such simple information wrong then please tell me why anything else you say should be considered? Not being nasty but such simple mistakes on things written in clear english does not inspire confidence in more complicated matters.

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.