6 Days of Creation

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Try Dueteronomy 22:28-29

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

This law of Moses was to protect the honor of the virgin and provide
a father for her baby if one resulted from the intercourse. It was
also to protect the honor of the father of the virgin and to compensate
him for any damages done. The father had the right to take the money
and the young woman could refuse to marry the man that had the
intercourse with her. You have not considered that the woman may
have seduced the man into having intercourse with her in order to get
married. So the result may be better for the woman than you think
for the man would never be able to leave her.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The father had the right to take the money
and the young woman could refuse to marry the man that had the
intercourse with her. You have not considered that the woman may
have seduced the man into having intercourse with her in order to get
married.

The scripture is as follows: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Are you claiming that the conventions of bible scholarship allow you to take the word "rape" from this piece of scripture and interpret it as something the rape victim may have wanted, when you speculate that the woman who was raped "...may have seduced the man into having intercourse with her". Does not the word "rape" in the bible mean "rape"? How are you able to give yourself the leeway to suggest that the word "rape" in the bible could mean something along the lines of 'devious woman using sex to trap a man'?

Originally posted by FMF
The scripture is as follows: [b]"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Are you claiming that the conventions of bible scholarship allow y e could mean something along the lines of 'devious woman using sex to trap a man'?[/b]

This use of the word "rape" is one translator's view of the meaning of the
Hebrew text. Other translations do not use the word "rape". See the two
links below for other translations of that verse. The 2nd one includes the
Hebrew.

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

http://biblos.com/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
This use of the word "rape" is one translator's view of the meaning of the
Hebrew text. Other translations do not use the word "rape". See the two
links below for other translations of that verse. The 2nd one includes the
Hebrew.

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

http://biblos.com/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

So you believe the word "rape" is incorrect and that the true word would be something that means 'sexual intercourse claimed to be rape by a woman in order to get a man to marry her'?

Originally posted by RJHinds
This use of the word "rape" is one translator's view of the meaning of the
Hebrew text. Other translations do not use the word "rape". ...http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

There are at least sixteen translation found at the link (above) that you gave me: every single one of them suggests variations on rape, forced sex, violent seizure, sexual intercourse without consent, taking a woman by force, physical coercion. There is nothing there to substantiate your claim that the word "rape" in fact means something akin to 'false accusation of rape'.

Originally posted by FMF
So you believe the word "rape" is incorrect and that the true word would be something that means 'sexual intercourse claimed to be rape by a woman in order to get a man to marry her'?

I believe it does include sexual intercourse, but it is not clear that this
holding on to the virgin is an act of rape. It is also not clear what part
the virgin had in this for it to take place. So one can imagine different
scenarios.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe it does include sexual intercourse, but it is not clear that this
holding on to the virgin is an act of rape. It is also not clear what part
the virgin had in this for it to take place. So one can imagine different
scenarios.

You cannot argue "different scenarios" based on the various translations at the link you directed me to. They all clearly describe a scenario in which there was rape, violent seizure, physical coercion, sexual intercourse without consent, forced sex, taking a woman by force etc. All of them describe such a scenario and there is no word or words that describe or allude to 'deceit' on the part of the rape victim or false claims of rape by a woman. Out of the sixteen translations you suggested I look at, which ones do you claim turn the verse into one about "the woman may have seduced the man into having intercourse with her in order to get married" and not about non-consensual sex. Be specific.

Originally posted by FMF
You cannot argue "different scenarios" based on the various translations at the link you directed me to. They all clearly describe a scenario in which there was rape, violent seizure, physical coercion, sexual intercourse without consent, forced sex, taking a woman by force etc. All of them describe such a scenario and there is no word or words that describe or ...[text shortened]... tercourse with her in order to get married" and not about non-consensual sex. Be specific.

Some people agree with you, but I don't. Until there is a trial, one
could not really tell if there is violence involved or not. So I would
rather not jump to conclusions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some people agree with you, but I don't. Until there is a trial, one
could not really tell if there is violence involved or not. So I would
rather not jump to conclusions.

Then debate your point of view and give reasons ... else shut up.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So I would rather not jump to conclusions.

You have the bible text, which is quite clear in its reference to non-consensual sex. And then there's you claiming the right "to imagine different scenarios" involving consensual sex or deceit or false claims of rape. And then now you are saying you don't want to jump to conclusions. Are you sure you're exhibiting the same standard and integrity of bible textual analysis and interpretation that you demand of others on this forum?

Originally posted by FMF
You have the bible text, which is quite clear in its reference to non-consensual sex. And then there's you claiming the right "to imagine different scenarios" involving consensual sex or deceit or false claims of rape. And then now you are saying you don't want to jump to conclusions. Are you sure you're exhibiting the same standard and integrity of bible textual analysis and interpretation that you demand of others on this forum?

I am just saying that the original text has been translated various ways;
so this indicates to me that all the details are not clear. To seize or hold
on to the virgin does not necessarily mean a rape.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am just saying that the original text has been translated various ways;
so this indicates to me that all the details are not clear. To seize or hold
on to the virgin does not necessarily mean a rape.

The links you yourself provided suggest the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Which words in the bible text do you claim make this verse about "the woman [seducing] the man into having intercourse with her in order to get married"?

Why would the bible demand that "fifty shekels of silver" be paid to the rape victim's father if this 'deceitful woman' explanation that you "imagine" was the actual intention of this bible text?

Originally posted by FMF
The links you yourself provided suggest the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Which words in the bible text do you claim make this verse about "the woman [seducing] the man into having intercourse with her in order to get married"?

Why would the bible demand that "fifty shekels of silver" be paid to the rape victim's father if this 'deceitful woman' explanation that you "imagine" was the actual intention of this bible text?

I do not know what the exact situation is here and it does appear the
the virgin is innocent. However, this situation must not be as serious
as the other situations mentioned before in which the man is put to
death for having sex with the virgin that cries out for help or where
both the man and woman or put to death. Why this is so is not clear
to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not know what the exact situation is here and it does appear the
the virgin is innocent. However, this situation must not be as serious
as the other situations mentioned before in which the man is put to
death for having sex with the virgin that cries out for help or where
both the man and woman or put to death. Why this is so is not clear
to me.

Which specific words in this bible text do you claim mean that this verse could be about "the woman [seducing] the man into having intercourse with her in order to get married" [rather than non-consensual sex] as you suggested in an earlier post? Specifically.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am just saying that the original text has been translated various ways;
so this indicates to me that all the details are not clear. To seize or hold
on to the virgin does not necessarily mean a rape.

Do you not think that if there was a god and he wanted us to follow his laws he would make them concise, clear and unambiguous?

Do you not think that if there was a god he would have his laws communicated in all languages?

Do you not think that if there was a god he would want all you well-intentioned theists to understand and agree on his laws?


Do you not think?