Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not if it is consensual. Did you even read the example I gave? I am guessing you didn't. Go back read it then tell me is it rape. I never said taphas meant rape. I said I gave a clear example where force was used and it was not rape. Once again you fail on basic comprehension which makes me wonder how well you actually understand these terms. This really is the same thing you did in the debate. You don't address the points raised and then claim you have won the debate.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 have not answered my question. You have not answered what is widely used? Fact is that with unit sales of bibles and particular translation can be in the top ten list but still not be widely used compared to the top three.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.
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 womans 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)
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 womans 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)
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.
Achilles said: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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
It doesn't matter what English term the Bible uses, what matters is what the Hebrew says and the context of the passage.
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 Abrahams 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.
Why not pick one of the 30 that don't use rape, or even mention them, then?
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.
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.
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.
The bible's own numbers indicate she is three and you cannot refute that point (thus why you didn't). And yes, a three year-old can carry a jar.
It isn't a bucket, it's a jar. And the fact that she needs to carry a jar on her shoulders ought to tell you something about her age.
...this vessel was one which women were accustomed to carry on their shoulders
I gave you the numbers from the bible itself. Let me try again:
Abraham is told of Rebecca's birth when he settles in Beer-sheba (Genesis 22:23).
Sarah dies at 127 (making Isaac 37) in Kiriath-arba (thus before Beer-sheba). (Genesis 23:1-2)
Issac is 40 when he marries her. (Gen 25:20)
Thus, the oldest Rebecca can be is three, and three is the age at which Jewish customs of the time allowed for marriage.
The Dag said:Not if it is consensual. Did you even read the example I gave? I am guessing you didn't. Go back read it then tell me is it rape. I never said taphas meant rape. I said I gave a clear example where force was used and it was not rape. Once again you fail on basic comprehension which makes me wonder how well you actually understand these terms. This really is the same thing you did in the debate. You don't address the points raised and then claim you have won the debate.
Yet you still have not answered my question. You have not answered what is widely used? Fact is that with unit sales of bibles and particular translation can be in the top ten list but still not be widely used compared to the top three.
Another point I made about the list is that you can not make claims based on figures that change from month to month and year to year. More recent figures show achilles was correct in their claim and that you were wrong. You need to prove that more recent figures are not worth paying attention to otherwise you have not shown him to be wrong like you claimed.
My final point on that which you don't seem to grasp is that you made a very basic mistake is reading those figures which (assuming the best about you) means you just don't comprehend these things very well at all.
Achilles said:Sorry I missed your reply - it seems for some reason it didn't come up on my control panel. Anyways, at this point I have provided sufficient evidence that the passage is not referring to rape. If you wish to reject the evidence, we will simply have to agree to disagree. There is one thing that you said, however, that I do wish to address.
Evidently three-year-olds could also speak well enough to hold a conversation and were also allowed to go to wells by themselves back in that day and age They were also, evidently, strong enough to draw water from a well (which is quite impressive for a three-year-old).
Perhaps you should actually study the word before you comment on it:
Hebrew Lexicon :: H3537 (KJV)
(From Gesenius' Lexicon):
Right, and the chronology is never mentioned. They didn't have instant communication back then and things were often told long after the event.
"20 Now it came about after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, “Behold, Milcah [j]also has borne children to your brother Nahor: 21 Uz his firstborn and Buz his brother and Kemuel the father of Aram 22 and Chesed and Hazo and Pildash and Jidlaph and Bethuel.” 23 Bethuel [k]became the father of Rebekah; these eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother." Gen. 22:20-23 (NASB)
You'll notice that Abraham is told of the birth of a bunch of people at once; so obviously chronology is not a concern.
To my knowledge, three is never the age at which Jewish customs of the time allowed for marriage. If you're going to make an assertion like that then I suggest you supply some pretty serious evidence for it!
You're looking at the numbers incorrectly based off of a misinterpretation of Genesis 22:23. We have no idea of how old Rebekah was when she married Isaac except that she was a woman who had gone through puberty (as clearly evidenced by the description of her in Genesis 24).
There is no dialogue in the bible that signals a three-year old is unlikely.
And drawing a jar of water does not require any sort of strength.
It simply means a jar or a large jar.
For the sake of argument, let's say there are a few years of wiggle room in there. Okay, then she's five or six, seven or eight. She's still prepubescent when married to a forty-year old.
As for the Jewish custom of marriage at three:
"In the case of a girl, however, a different rule prevails. A father is entitled to arrange the kiddushin of his daughter, whether she is a ketannah or a na'arah, without her consent (Kid. 44b and Sh. Ar., EH 37:1 & 3). Accordingly, if a father effects kiddushin for his daughter by, e.g., accepting kesef-kiddushin for her (see *Marriage), she is considered a married woman and cannot remarry until the death of her husband or her divorce from him (Kid. 44b and Rashi; Tur and Beit Yosef, EH 37; Sh. Ar. EH 37:1, 3)." -- Child Marriage
Achilles said:So you believe that:
1) Three-year-olds can carry water jars (which women normally carry) on their shoulders
2) They can be described as "very attractive in appearance."
3) Can carry on conversations
4) Are allowed to go to wells by themselves and talk to strangers
5) They're strong enough to draw water for a bunch of camels with a woman's water jar
The entire description is of a young woman who's already gone through puberty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?