Which parts can you ignore in the OT?

[BigBadWlf]

I suppose
Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

just isn't penalty enough for you?

Well the girl who was forced to marry the sick pervert who attacked and raped sure was punished and rightfull so

 

[BigBadWlf]

I suppose
Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

just isn't penalty enough for you?

this is lacking a sense of causality

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Have you ever read Tess of the d'Urbervilles by any chance?

An innocent girl becomes seduced by a man and is they are considered married. Since the law permits only marriage between 2 persons and no divorce is allowed, Tess is married to the person who took advantage of her.

Now I understand that the *intent* of the law is to provide financial support for women.

However, doesn't something about being associated with the perpetrator as compensation seem a bit twisted?

 

[Meshavrischika]

Have you ever read Tess of the d'Urbervilles by any chance?

An innocent girl becomes seduced by a man and is they are considered married. Since the law permits only marriage between 2 persons and no divorce is allowed, Tess is married to the person who took advantage of her.

Now I understand that the *intent* of the law is to provide financial support for women.

However, doesn't something about being associated with the perpetrator as compensation seem a bit twisted?

I agree. It's pretty disturbing.
Of course, most people would choose to ignore this part of the O.T. (bringing us round to the initial post). I certainly would in a case like this.
In context though, most women didn't know their husbands to begin with and also were not valued members of society anyway. (thank GOODNESS that's not the case where I live now)

 

[rambot]

From back in post 49

That's a really good point. I'm not sure what one is to learn from it. I remember reading the story of Sodom and Gommorah, since it is quoted so often.

After Lot and his daughters leave S&G, leaving his wife who is a salt lick, the daughters conspire together to give their father an heir by getting their father drunk, and then having sex with him. It's not once, but two successive nights.

And we are to learn from this that...?
Moral people "keep it in the family"?

And this is the story that people use to talk about morality? The bible lists the sins of S&G, and yet, ask the average Christian, and they will say that it was due to homosexuality, and will even disagree that it wasn't a choice they were offering Lot's guests.

If you read Job, God and Satan basically have a contest with Job's life, including killing his family, his livestock, his house, and making him have boils. Even though he was healed, and had a new family, can one really replace one's family?

And this teaches us what? That God was teaching Satan a lesson, and Lot got in the way?

Much of it makes you go hmmmmm.

First off, one need make SURE they understand the real reason behind S&G's destruction (See Judges). In fact, those stories become interesting anthropomorphic studies.

And we are to learn from this that...?

As I said, I'm not sure we are required to get moral guidance from the OT (exactly what this question implies and the OP asks for). As I mentioned, it's a story about the relationship between God and Israel.

And this teaches us what? That God was teaching Satan a lesson, and Lot got in the way?

No real moral lesson, though some people find inspiration in Job's strength and commitment to God.

 

[Merlin]

Have you ever read Tess of the d'Urbervilles by any chance?

can't say I have. Which book/chapter?

An innocent girl becomes seduced by a man and is they are considered married. Since the law permits only marriage between 2 persons and no divorce is allowed, Tess is married to the person who took advantage of her.

obviously not Biblical.

Now I understand that the *intent* of the law is to provide financial support for women.

However, doesn't something about being associated with the perpetrator as compensation seem a bit twisted?

A perpetrator sentensed to life without parole

 

[BigBadWlf]

can't say I have. Which book/chapter?


obviously not Biblical.


A perpetrator sentensed to life without parole

Very biblical. Rape is often used in the bible to force girls into marriage

Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30

 

[PetersKeys]

I view Leviticus 18:19 differently. The entire list of prohibitions in Lev 18 are exclusively extra-marital. I am not sure what was going on with men approaching women who were having their period but it appears to me at least that this was something outside of the marriage bed. Leviticus 15:24 deals with inter-marital relations when a woman is having her period and only addresses it as a sanitary issue, not a sin issue.

yes this is true. Also pork was unable to keep well back then, so it caused alot of people to get sick when they ate it because pork has high levels of bacteria and they didn't have freezers. Same with seafood. It rots easily and causes food poisining easily. Sex with a woman on her peroid is unsanitary and can cause infection. Wearing wool can easily irritate the skin and cause rash. Homosexual sex causes someone to be in contact with human waste which can cause e-coli and other diseases. They were to keep the Hebrews in good health and to test their faith in God.

 

[PetersKeys]

I suppose
Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

just isn't penalty enough for you?

You realize the original translation dosen't use the word rape. it simply states that if a man has sex with a woman who is a virgin, he must marry her. In fact none of the traslations even use the word rape. Did you forge that into the verse??
22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman's father. It is assumed that the bride's father's rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price.


http://www.answeringislam.info/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17​

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas

 

[Meshavrischika]

You realize the original translation dosen't use the word rape. it simply states that if a man has sex with a woman who is a virgin, he must marry her. In fact none of the traslations even use the word rape. Did you forge that into the verse??
22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman's father. It is assumed that the bride's father's rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price.


http://www.answeringislam.info/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17​

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas

research and understanding is a wonderful thing

 

[Meshavrischika]

You realize the original translation dosen't use the word rape. it simply states that if a man has sex with a woman who is a virgin, he must marry her. In fact none of the traslations even use the word rape. Did you forge that into the verse??
22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman's father. It is assumed that the bride's father's rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price.


http://www.answeringislam.info/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17​

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas

research and understanding is a wonderful thing

 

[Merlin]

Very biblical. Rape is often used in the bible to force girls into marriage

wait!
we're discussing "Have you ever read Tess of the d'Urbervilles by any chance?"

Further, "Since the law permits only marriage between 2 persons and no divorce is allowed"

is clearly non-Biblical









Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30[/quote]

 

[Merlin]

You realize the original translation dosen't use the word rape. it simply states that if a man has sex with a woman who is a virgin, he must marry her. In fact none of the traslations even use the word rape. Did you forge that into the verse??

It's probably just not a well known translation.
It's called the "New International Version" from which I did a copy-paste.

22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman's father. It is assumed that the bride's father's rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price.


http://www.answeringislam.info/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17​

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas

That's interesting. But it's not what my Bible says on the subject.
You're jumping to another book of the Bible and a totally different context.

Beginning a bit earlier in my quote to include context:

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her
14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,"
15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate.
16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town,
18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.
19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found,
21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,
24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Now,

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor,
27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Again, cut-paste from that obscure NIV

 

[BigBadWlf]

yes this is true. Also pork was unable to keep well back then, so it caused alot of people to get sick when they ate it because pork has high levels of bacteria and they didn't have freezers. Same with seafood. It rots easily and causes food poisining easily.

Wow…any evidnce for this claim?


I hear it tossed around a lot…but no one ever bothers to back it up.

Or explain how the Greeks and Romans and Babylonians happily ate shellfish and pork without dying out. you know those Greeks were pretty smart - I bet they had working freezers to handle their shell food rich diet.

Sex with a woman on her peroid is unsanitary and can cause infection.

And that is why the WHO keeps a record of the millions of infections this causes every year in the United States. I can’t seem to find the World Health Organization reports on this…maybe you could be a pall and link us all to the WHO report on infections caused by contact with a woman during her period.

Wearing wool can easily irritate the skin and cause rash.

No wonder the Scots are such grumpy people….hmmm….you do realize that wearing wool isn’t an abomination, the sin God talks about is wearing a garment made form two different fabrics, like wool and cotton woven together. You better check the label of what you are wearing, you may be an abomination unto God.

Homosexual sex causes someone to be in contact with human waste which can cause e-coli and other diseases.

You do realize that the vagina is loaded with E-Coli as well and thousands of other bacteria and fungi and possibly parasites…right?

They were to keep the Hebrews in good health and to test their faith in God.

This doesn’t explain the good health of their neighbors. or why such laws are ignored today...or used selectively to attack members of a minority.

 

[BigBadWlf]

wait!
we're discussing "Have you ever read Tess of the d'Urbervilles by any chance?"

Further, "Since the law permits only marriage between 2 persons and no divorce is allowed"

is clearly non-Biblical

And the use of rape to force women into marriage is very biblical. One minght even claim that such was part of God’s plan for the family.

Just like polygamy and levirate marriages.

What did the author of the bible call the second and third and fourth (or more) women who married a man? God called them wives.

 

[ReverendDG]

yes this is true. Also pork was unable to keep well back then, so it caused alot of people to get sick when they ate it because pork has high levels of bacteria and they didn't have freezers. Same with seafood. It rots easily and causes food poisining easily.

nice ad hoc argument, too bad its completely wrong

Sex with a woman on her peroid is unsanitary and can cause infection.

wrong, it was about superstition, just like everyone else around the israelites, they were afraid of women

Wearing wool can easily irritate the skin and cause rash

what? thats your argument? its itchy?that is the weakest argument ever

Homosexual sex causes someone to be in contact with human waste which can cause e-coli and other diseases.

you have no clue what you are talking about do you? read a book

They were to keep the Hebrews in good health and to test their faith in God.

you are completely wrong, the hebrews followed gods laws to separate themselves from the people around them, health as a reason is just silly
the main reason was to keep the people from taking up other religious practices, or causing others to do so, notice all the laws were about things other peoples did. after all israel had problems with absorbing other religious ideas.

why have a rule about shaving the sides of the head? other people around them did this, i believe the canaanites did.

 

[ReverendDG]

You realize the original translation dosen't use the word rape. it simply states that if a man has sex with a woman who is a virgin, he must marry her. In fact none of the traslations even use the word rape. Did you forge that into the verse??

proof please? whats an "original translation" anyway? translations are translations, the original text the translation is from says rape

22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman's father. It is assumed that the bride's father's rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price.

if the woman did not consent, its bloody rape! who cares if it was seduction or not?

http://www.answeringislam.info/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17​

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas

and heres the response to your link:
http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_16.htm