Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhile I can see that Brown-Driver-Briggs suits your preference, its incomplete list of definitions clearly does not encompass the translation work of countless other linguists and theological scholars who have worked on the text and produced the preponderance of bible translations that you take it upon yourself to dismiss.
Ha! That's why the first four entries when one types in "Hebrew Lexicon" are all links to Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius, right?
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 agre ...[text shortened]... de for her without divorce.
The convolutions required of thinking are beyond laughable.
Originally posted by FMFSays the guy who stands on zero scholarship references, demanding we throw away the most widely used while offering nothing in exchange or in opposition. What a joke.
While I can see that Brown-Driver-Briggs suits your preference, its incomplete list of definitions clearly does not encompass the translation work of countless other linguists and theological scholars who have worked on the text and produced the preponderance of bible translations that you take it upon yourself to dismiss.
Originally posted by FMFI have pointed out that Moses was not perfect and perhaps He worded
While I can see that Brown-Driver-Briggs suits your preference, its incomplete list of definitions clearly does not encompass the translation work of countless other linguists and theological scholars who have worked on the text and produced the preponderance of bible translations that you take it upon yourself to dismiss.
this in the Hebrew that everyone there understood what He meant and
had no argument with it. Today, it does not seem so clear to us because
we are trying to understand it from translations and none of us actually
understaqnd the original language. I doubt if those that speak Hebrew
today understand everything about the old Hebrew language.
But we must try to understand it in context with the other laws made
on this subject and based on the punishments Moses gave various types
of sexual sins. It would seem a sudden change in his moral judgment to
force the raped woman to marry a man that raped her against her will.
So I don't think we can reasonable conclude that is what he meant to say.
Those who want to find fault with God and the Holy Bible will not be
reasonable for they only want to prove the Holy Bible false or an evil book
about an evil God. So there is really no point in trying to reason with
someone like that.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou contend that the translators of the numerous editions of the bible that clearly depict the scenario in question to be one involving non-consensual sex "...only want to prove the Holy Bible false or an evil book about an evil God" and "...want to find fault with God and the Holy Bible"?
Those who want to find fault with God and the Holy Bible will not be
reasonable for they only want to prove the Holy Bible false or an evil book
about an evil God. So there is really no point in trying to reason with
someone like that.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are analysing the laws with a modern perspective, where the rights of the woman who
I have pointed out that Moses was not perfect and perhaps He worded
this in the Hebrew that everyone there understood what He meant and
had no argument with it. Today, it does not seem so clear to us because
we are trying to understand it from translations and none of us actually
understaqnd the original language. I doubt if those that speak Hebrew
to ...[text shortened]... k
about an evil God. So there is really no point in trying to reason with
someone like that.
has been raped are paramount.
However it makes more sense if you look at these 'laws' with respect to the thinking of the
time where the woman is regarded as the property of her father or husband.
Also as Moses was supposed to be gods emissary there is still no excuse for the barbarism of
these laws for which god still takes full responsibility (presuming for the moment he exists of
course) because god set this guy up as an important and powerful figure while knowing his
nature full well and while directly talking to him and giving him tips.
So if his laws don't come up to scratch that is gods fault.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FMFEven if it's consensual sex, it's backwards and barbaric to then force them to be married for
You contend that the translators of the numerous editions of the bible that clearly depict the scenario in question to be one involving non-consensual sex "...only want to prove the Holy Bible false or an evil book about an evil God" and "...want to find fault with God and the Holy Bible"?
the rest of their lives with no hope of divorce and to fine the guy for 'despoiling his property'
ie. his daughter.
It still treats the woman as the property of men, and not as a person.
Originally posted by FMFNo I am not saying that even though in some cases it could be true. When
You contend that the translators of the numerous editions of the bible that clearly depict the scenario in question to be one involving non-consensual sex "...only want to prove the Holy Bible false or an evil book about an evil God" and "...want to find fault with God and the Holy Bible"?
it comes to the translators I would think they are trying to translate it as
accurately as they can but there are translations that are done by some
people who do not know the ancient Hebrew well enough to give accurate
translations in all cases.
The following is the whole context from the American Standard Version,
Deu. 22:13-29
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity;
15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate;
16 and the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge, saying, I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him;
19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel;
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.
23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.
25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter;
27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
Now notice it does not say anything about forced sex or that she cried out
for help as in the case in verses 25-27 in which the man is to be put to death.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat does this have to do with "...those who want to find fault with God and the Holy Bible will not be reasonable for they only want to prove the Holy Bible false or an evil book about an evil God"? The translators you disagree with are OK? But the people who read how they translate it, just "...want to prove the Holy Bible false or an evil book about an evil God"?
No I am not saying that even though in some cases it could be true. When
it comes to the translators I would think they are trying to translate it as
accurately as they can but there are translations that are done by some
people who do not know the ancient Hebrew well enough to give accurate
translations in all cases.
Which part of the text quoted in the post above leads you to claim, as you did earlier in this thread, that the scenario is possibly one of a 'false accusation of rape' rather rape? Be specific: which words make you interpret it to be a 'false accusation of rape'?
Originally posted by FMFThose that want to prove the Bible wrong will pick out text like this that are
What does this have to do with "...those who want to find fault with God and the Holy Bible will not be reasonable for they only want to prove the Holy Bible false or an evil book about an evil God"? The translators you disagree with are OK? But the people who read how they translate it, just "...want to prove the Holy Bible false or an evil book about an evil G ...[text shortened]... rape? Be specific: which words make you interpret it to be a 'false accusation of rape'?
not translated correctly or those that appear to say something that it does
not say. Notice that they picked the translation that said "rape" when it
is not in the orginal Hebrew text but in one of the incorrectly translated
English versions. There is no forced sex (rape) indicated in the last case,
otherwise the man would have been put to death like in the case before.
Originally posted by RJHindsI'll try again. Which part of the text quoted in your extended post further up this page leads you to claim, as you did earlier in this thread, that the scenario is possibly one of a 'false accusation of rape' rather rape? Be specific: which words make you interpret it to be a 'false accusation of rape'? You are making claims about what words mean and don't mean, correct translation and incorrect translation, and you have extrapolated a 'false accusation of rape' meaning. Explain.
Those that want to prove the Bible wrong will pick out text like this that are
not translated correctly or those that appear to say something that it does
not say. Notice that they picked the translation that said "rape" when it
is not in the orginal Hebrew text but in one of the incorrectly translated
English versions. There is no forced sex (rape) i ...[text shortened]... ted in the last case,
otherwise the man would have been put to death like in the case before.
Originally posted by FMFYou apparently misunderstood me or I failed to make myself clear for
I'll try again. Which part of the text quoted in your extended post further up this page leads you to claim, as you did earlier in this thread, that the scenario is possibly one of a 'false accusation of rape' rather rape? Be specific: which words make you interpret it to be a 'false accusation of rape'? You are making claims about what words mean and don't mean ...[text shortened]... ct translation, and you have extrapolated a 'false accusation of rape' meaning. Explain.
I did not say there was a false accusation of rape but their was no
rape at all in the last case. It is the previous case were the rape came
in for that is what forced sex is. This last case could not have been
rape because the punishment for that is death. I was speculating on
what type of action may have happened that Moses would give the
punishment he did for this violation of the virginity of the girl. I did
not mean that anyone falsely accused him of rape.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd yet you claimed that that was what the verse could mean. Which words made you think you could suggest that scenario? Be specific about the words, because you are claiming the right to dismiss the work of bible scholars, theologians and linguists when it comes to words, and yet seem to reserve the right to "imagine" [yep, that was the word you used] an entirely different scenario and simply attach it to the words that we can all read. Which words made you claim it could have been 'a false accusation of rape'?
I did not mean that anyone falsely accused him of rape.
Originally posted by FMFFor the last time I did not claim 'a false accusation of rape'. That is your
And yet you claimed that that was what the verse could mean. Which words made you think you could suggest that scenario? Be specific about the words, because you are claiming the right to dismiss the work of bible scholars, theologians and linguists when it comes to words, and yet seem to reserve the right to "imagine" [yep, that was the word you used] an entire ...[text shortened]... we can all read. Which words made you claim it could have been 'a false accusation of rape'?
statement.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAs was stated earlier, with an assumption of consensual action, the judgment is more than humane. Given the demand for purity, a woman's virginity was her only hope for financial stability or social security. Without her virginity, an unmarried woman was destitute and held no hope for the future.
Even if it's consensual sex, it's backwards and barbaric to then force them to be married for
the rest of their lives with no hope of divorce and to fine the guy for 'despoiling his property'
ie. his daughter.
It still treats the woman as the property of men, and not as a person.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI contend that the following bibles constitute legitimate scholarship, and that this body of published scholarship trumps your assertions, at least in my estimation: New International Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard, King James, God’s Word Translation, King James 2000, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Bible in Basic English, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation and others in other languages apart from English. While your claim that the "convolutions required of thinking [on the part of all these translations of the bible] are beyond laughable" is not an 'argument' per se, I accept that it is your view and I agree to disagree. 🙂
Says the guy who stands on zero scholarship references, demanding we throw away the most widely used while offering nothing in exchange or in opposition. What a joke.