Originally posted by FMFBelieve whatever you like. I am not going to bother with it anymore. I
No. You're reaching. There is nothing implied by the word "they" as you contend, certainly not in the context - that you yourself portray - of women as chattel and women dishonoured by losing their virginity improperly, even if raped. RJHinds is arguing this bible text may imply false claims of rape by a deceitful woman and you are suggesting that the word "they" suggests consensual sex. Neither of you is convincing in the slightest.
have some very tough chess matches now to put my attention to.
Originally posted by FMFGiven my earnest studies in the ancient languages (however slight the accomplishments) in comparison to your predisposition to a disbelief regardless of the actual facts, I submit that a shovel hitting you in the face would prompt doubt of injury.
No. You're reaching. There is nothing implied by the word "they" as you contend, certainly not in the context - that you yourself portray - of women as chattel and women dishonoured by losing their virginity improperly, even if raped. RJHinds is arguing this bible text may imply false claims of rape by a deceitful woman and you are suggesting that the word "they" suggests consensual sex. Neither of you is convincing in the slightest.
If the words themselves are not enough to convince you (in the previous verses, force is clearly used, whereas in this verse it is not) the procession from there screams the distinction you so readily dismiss without justification. In those verses wherein force is used, the man is found and brought forward for justice. In those verses wherein complicity is discovered, the man and the woman are brought forward for justice.
In this verse, because of the provision of a binding marriage, neither the man or the woman are brought to any more severe justice than a life-long contractual agreement.
You are asking the reader to assume that in all cases of rape--- except this one of random circumstances--- the rapist is put to death. That type of tortured reading and complete lack of common sense is unsupportable by anything within the text and is beneath a thinking person.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHyour argument is total bunk for one reason.
While I appreciate your lack of exposure to the original language, and thus, any nuance involved, nonetheless the original text does not lend itself to forcible sex. Instead, "they" are found, implying a consensual act.
That being said, even if the act was not consensual your insistence that somehow the rapist was 'getting away with it' while th ...[text shortened]... n has a hope of preserving her virginity without losing her life, she is expected to do so.
This advice was supposed to be given by god or god's emissary.
whatever laws god laid down would be followed because god said so right.
So god could make his laws advanced and progressive and make society better.
as opposed to codify what was already practised.
These laws clearly treat women as property of men, and treats them like slaves to men.
To do with as they will, and not as people, with hopes wishes, desires and rights of their own.
It has taken millennia to overcome this prejudice, and we still haven't overcome it completely.
This is largely due to the influence of Christianity and this abomination of a holy book.
If god really inspired it then god sucks.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWe are so progressive, that we've finally stumbled upon the state taking care of, creating a hedge around the least powerful.
your argument is total bunk for one reason.
This advice was supposed to be given by god or god's emissary.
whatever laws god laid down would be followed because god said so right.
So god could make his laws advanced and progressive and make society better.
as opposed to codify what was already practised.
These laws clearly treat women as propert ...[text shortened]... Christianity and this abomination of a holy book.
If god really inspired it then god sucks.
Kind of like what those primitive, hopelessly ignorant folks of ancient Israel used as their guide to every-day life, huh.
Open your eyes.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, nothing like those primitive savages who kept slaves, stoned people to death, and treated women as property.
We are so progressive, that we've finally stumbled upon the state taking care of, creating a hedge around the least powerful.
Kind of like what those primitive, hopelessly ignorant folks of ancient Israel used as their guide to every-day life, huh.
Open your eyes.
I have to assume you are deliberately posting rubbish like this simply because you want to annoy me,
Nobody can seriously believe this while still having a functioning brain.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour ad hominem may well display your earnestness but it does not alter the fact that the wording "they are found" simply does not imply that it was consensual sex.
You are asking the reader to assume that in all cases of rape--- except this one of random circumstances--- the rapist is put to death. That type of tortured reading and complete lack of common sense is unsupportable by anything within the text and is beneath a thinking person.
Originally posted by FMFI see. So you've got nothing to counter the obvious. Makes sense to re-state your case then. Your contention has no legs and, in light of the facts that have been pointed out herein, you ought to drop your argument and move on. Somehow, I doubt this will happen.
Your ad hominem may well display your earnestness but it does not alter the fact that the wording "they are found" simply does not imply that it was consensual sex.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOn the contrary. I have 4 bibles in my house, in three different languages. And I've been to a couple of web sites and confirmed that the verse in question refers to non-consensual sex. Neither your obtuse interpretation and extrapolation of the words "they" and "found" nor RJHinds' imagined scenario about it possibly being a deceitful woman making false accusations of rape has had any impact at all on what the bibles here clearly say. Sorry to say, but your little effort - and RJHinds' - to add your spin here has not worked out for you. I am happy to move on. 😀
I see. So you've got nothing to counter the obvious. Makes sense to re-state your case then. Your contention has no legs and, in light of the facts that have been pointed out herein, you ought to drop your argument and move on. Somehow, I doubt this will happen.
Originally posted by FMFYou could have four thousand Bibles in your house, with all of the languages of the world littered among them, but rendering the original language as 'rape' when it ought to be rendered otherwise doesn't change the original concept.
On the contrary. I have 4 bibles in my house, in three different languages. And I've been to a couple of web sites and confirmed that the verse in question refers to non-consensual sex. Neither your obtuse interpretation and extrapolation of the words "they" and "found" nor RJHinds' imagined scenario about it possibly being a deceitful woman making false accusat ...[text shortened]... nd RJHinds' - to add your spin here has not worked out for you. I am happy to move on. 😀
The words the NIV uses to connote rape from the Hebrew are taphas and shakab.
From Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon:
taphas -
# 08610
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
a) (Qal)
1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)
AV - take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4, surprised 2, misc 4; 65
and
shakab -
# 07901
1) to lie down
a) (Qal)
1) to lie, lie down, lie on
2) to lodge
3) to lie (of sexual relations)
4) to lie down (in death)
5) to rest, relax (fig)
b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
e) (Hophal) to be laid
AV - lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2, misc 10; 212
In other parts of the Scripture, when shakab is used, it is always denoting consensual acts, unless it is used with other words, such as chazaq, or anah. Previous to the verse in question, the word chazaq is used and the perpetrator is held accountable for his actions. In this verse, only shakab is used, steering the reader away from force and toward a consensual act. This is made much more clear by the subsequent action and reaction: they are found and they are married, without provision for a divorce and with the father receiving his full dowry.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell. Let me see. I've got the people who wrote and translated the bibles I have in my possession (and that RJHinds gave me a link to) on one hand. And I have RJHinds and FreakyKBH with their earnest theories online on the other. Maybe you and RJHinds should just talk it over and see if you can make it four thousand and one. 🙂
You could have four thousand Bibles in your house, with all of the languages of the world littered among them, but rendering the original language as 'rape' when it ought to be rendered otherwise doesn't change the original concept.
Originally posted by FMFStick with what you know.
Well. Let me see. I've got the people who wrote and translated the bibles I have in my possession (and that RJHinds gave me a link to) on one hand. And I have RJHinds and FreakyKBH with their earnest theories online on the other. Maybe you and RJHinds should just talk it over and see if you can make it four thousand and one. 🙂
Don't let the facts confuse you.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat I do know is that this world of "4000-bibles"-that-FreakyKBH-doesn't-endorse is populated by hundreds or perhaps thousands of linguists, theologians and translators who quite clearly don't completely agree with Brown-Driver-Briggs and have established through their scholarship that Deuteronomy 22 is about non-consensual sex, synonyms, euphemisms, nuances and all. You stick with what you know too. Suits me. 🙂
Stick with what you know.
Don't let the facts confuse you.
Originally posted by FMFHa! That's why the first four entries when one types in "Hebrew Lexicon" are all links to Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius, right?
What I do know is that this world of "4000-bibles"-that-FreakyKBH-doesn't-endorse is populated by hundreds or perhaps thousands of linguists, theologians and translators who quite clearly don't completely agree with Brown-Driver-Briggs and have established through their scholarship that Deuteronomy 22 is about non-consensual sex, synonyms, euphemisms, nuances and all. You stick with what you know too. Suits me. 🙂
And, just for giggles, why not provide the scholarship which refutes the terms as described? Oh, that's right: you can't. Your reasoned position isn't a result of actual study any more involved than finding a source that agrees with your predisposition. Once you found that confirmation, no need to look further.
If we are to believe your take on it, in ALL cases of rape in the Bible, the perpetrator is brought to justice... except this one instance, where he simply has to provide for her without divorce.
The convolutions required of thinking are beyond laughable.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe use of taphas in this verse is the only time it is used in the OT in relation to a sexual act as far as i can see (www.blueletterbibleorg). I've been 'educating' myself, spending far too long on it. Granted it's not the same as the earlier use of chazaq in 22:25, but in 22:23 where sex is definitely consensual there is no use of taphas or anywhere else in the OT regarding sexual acts.
You could have four thousand Bibles in your house, with all of the languages of the world littered among them, but rendering the original language as 'rape' when it ought to be rendered otherwise doesn't change the original concept.
The words the NIV uses to connote rape from the Hebrew are taphas and shakab.
From Brown-Driver-Briggs He ...[text shortened]... ey are married, without provision for a divorce and with the father receiving his full dowry.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe use of the word here does not necessarily bring significance to the act, but rather the fact that its pairing word shakab in all other instances of the Hebrew describes consensual activity.
The use of taphas in this verse is the only time it is used in the OT in relation to a sexual act as far as i can see (www.blueletterbibleorg). I've been 'educating' myself, spending far too long on it. Granted it's not the same as the earlier use of chazaq in 22:25, but in 22:23 where sex is definitely consensual there is no use of taphas or anywhere else in the OT regarding sexual acts.
Because taphas is used here, it is entirely within the realm of possibility--- given the tone of the surrounding words and the eventual outcome--- that the meaning of the word has more to do with the second definition than with an act of aggression as suggested by some of the other definitions.
It is very significant to consider the Bible's universal condemnation of rape in all other instances. If the suggested tortured rendition of this verse is to be believed, it is the lone and bizarre exception to all other mandates. The fact that the one wishing to believe this must ignore several hurdles in order to arrive at such an outlandish conclusion speaks volumes.