Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As 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.

And again you miss the point that those demands are themselves backwards and barbaric
and god needn't have supported and promoted them.

You keep falling back on the women having to be supported but that is because women
were not allowed to support themselves the men wouldn't let them.

God could have changed that, instead he promoted it.

So no the judgement is not humane, its backwards and barbaric, and is why we don't do such
things nowadays. (at least in the civilised world)

And in fact this passage both clearly applies to instances of rape and was interpreted as doing
so for much of history.

Originally posted by FMF
I 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 Basi ...[text shortened]... e" is not an 'argument' per se, I accept that it is your view and I agree to disagree. 🙂

King James Version
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

American Standard Version
22:28 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;

Bible in Basic English
22:28 If a man sees a young virgin, who has not given her word to be married to anyone, and he takes her by force and has connection with her, and discovery is made of it;

Darby's English Translation
22:28 If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

Douay Rheims Bible
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment :

Noah Webster Bible
22:28 If a man shall find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

World English Bible
22:28 If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Young's Literal Translation
22:28 `When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,

While I can find some KJV's which use the word force as is found in the Bible in Basic English, I'm not finding it here. But that is no matter, really, since a casual observation of the original language clears the issue up completely.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While I can find some KJV's which use the word force as is found in the Bible in Basic English, I'm not finding it here. But that is no matter, really, since a casual observation of the original language clears the issue up completely.

New International Version (©1984)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

English Standard Version (©2001)
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
This is what you must do when a man rapes a virgin who isn't engaged. When the crime is discovered,

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
If a man find a young woman that is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

American King James Version
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

American Standard Version
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;

Bible in Basic English
If a man sees a young virgin, who has not given her word to be married to anyone, and he takes her by force and has connection with her, and discovery is made of it;

Douay-Rheims Bible
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment :

Darby Bible Translation
If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

English Revised Version
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Webster's Bible Translation
If a man shall find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

World English Bible
If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Young's Literal Translation
'When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found...

Clearly, there is a consensus among the linguists, scholars and theologians who translated all these bibles that the verse refers to non-consensual sex. But I understand your view completely.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And again you miss the point that those demands are themselves backwards and barbaric
and god needn't have supported and promoted them.

You keep falling back on the women having to be supported but that is because women
were not allowed to support themselves the men wouldn't let them.

God could have changed that, instead he promoted it.

So n ...[text shortened]... h clearly applies to instances of rape and was interpreted as doing
so for much of history.

'The Bible is old,' appears to be your only beef. That women were protected in these situations ought to be a source of comfort for your so-very modern thinking, but it doesn't appear to offer you much salve. That probably has nothing to do with your general rejection of all things biblical, now does it?

In all cases of forcible sex--- rape--- the man is put to death. In all cases of illicit consensual sex--- infidelity--- the man and the woman are put to death. In this case of illicit consensual sex--- non-betrothed--- they are bound forever. This is protection for women and society at large. If, in the case of the latter, the man was simply put to death, the woman is faced with a life-long sentence of singlehood existence, with zero hope of financial stability.

You contend that God should have 'fixed' society so that the stigma would carry no weight: what, He should have mandated that a woman's virginity be as it nearly is today, meaningless?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
'The Bible is old,' appears to be your only beef. That women were protected in these situations ought to be a source of comfort for your so-very modern thinking, but it doesn't appear to offer you much salve. That probably has nothing to do with your general rejection of all things biblical, now does it?

In all cases of forcible sex--- rape--- the man ...[text shortened]... t, He should have mandated that a woman's virginity be as it nearly is today, meaningless?

YES.

women should be treated like people not property, and people shouldn't be stoned to death for having fun.

Any god that couldn't see that has the moral authority of used toilet paper.

Women weren't protected in those situations the fathers financial interest in them was protected.

Originally posted by FMF
[quote]New International Version (©1984)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married [b]and rapes her and they are discovered,

English Standard Version (©2001)
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"If a man finds a girl w ...[text shortened]... bibles that the verse refers to non-consensual sex. But I understand your view completely.[/b]

They are all (or nearly all) using the same transliterated word to convey the Hebrew word taphas, without consideration of the nuances of the word, nor the other uses within Scripture. When I hear the phrase 'lay hold of,' my mind cannot help but conjure violence and/or force. However, that does not speak to the fact that the original language is not emphatic in that rendering. Sloppy and simplistic is hardly a sure foundation.

Originally posted by googlefudge
YES.

women should be treated like people not property, and people shouldn't be stoned to death for having fun.

Any god that couldn't see that has the moral authority of used toilet paper.

Women weren't protected in those situations the fathers financial interest in them was protected.

God invented fun. If you weren't such a blow-hard douche bag with a blinding agenda, you'd be able to see the forest for the trees.

If 'people... having fun' is the order of the day, why is there such misery in the world as more and more restraints have been eliminated? I'm not talking about third-world countries or regimes based upon repression: take a look at the Western world and its no-holds bent on pleasure. Don't see a whole lot of happy people these days, do we?

Moral purity was the order of the day for a specific purpose: it keeps us safe.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
They are all (or nearly all) using the same transliterated word to convey the Hebrew word taphas, without consideration of the nuances of the word, nor the other uses within Scripture. When I hear the phrase 'lay hold of,' my mind cannot help but conjure violence and/or force. However, that does not speak to the fact that the original language is not emphatic in that rendering. Sloppy and simplistic is hardly a sure foundation.

You seem to be saying the numerous scholars and theologians who translated those bibles are "laughable" and "sloppy" and "simplistic", and I understand your view totally. I just don't agree. And presumably they don't agree with you either. And you don't agree with me or with them. I think the situation is pretty clear. I reckon you've argued your point pretty well even if I choose to stick with the dozen or so famous bible translations that I cited. If you need to have the last word, by all means go ahead. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
You seem to be saying the numerous scholars and theologians who translated those bibles are "laughable" and "sloppy" and "simplistic", and I understand your view totally. I just don't agree. And presumably they don't agree with you either. And you don't agree with me or with them. I think the situation is pretty clear. I reckon you've argued your point pretty we ...[text shortened]... ranslations that I cited. If you need to have the last word, by all means go ahead. 🙂

I think those that used the words suggesting violence or force did so under the guise of straight, un-amplified transliteration. Perhaps more telling is their refusal to use the word rape as has been done by the NIV. I vociferously contend that the NIV has it dead wrong, whereas the others are simply 'playing the ball where it lies,' so to speak and allowing the reader to draw his own conclusion.

My reasons for disagreeing with the NIV have been put forward herein. Add to that list the conspicuous lack of any situation within Scripture wherein any woman was forced to marry her rapist. Ever.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
God invented fun. If you weren't such a blow-hard douche bag with a blinding agenda, you'd be able to see the forest for the trees.

If 'people... having fun' is the order of the day, why is there such misery in the world as more and more restraints have been eliminated? I'm not talking about third-world countries or regimes based upon repression: take ...[text shortened]... do we?

Moral purity was the order of the day for a specific purpose: it keeps us safe.

When you have nothing but insults to offer as argument you have lost.

And yes the world is very miserable to day compared to when you got stoned to death for
being accused of having sex, if you were a women that is.

You have to be a complete moron to think that.

The world is vastly and inarguably better now than then.

you want to know what it was like living in those times, have a sex change and go live in a
Muslim third world country with sharia law. It sucked massive hairy monkey balls back then.

This is so beyond being debatable or in doubt that it actually makes you look stupider than
those people who claim we never went to the moon.

God doesn't frikin exist, never has done, and consequently never invented anything.

Originally posted by googlefudge
When you have nothing but insults to offer as argument you have lost. [...] You have to be a complete moron to think that [...] This is so beyond being debatable or in doubt that it actually makes you look stupider than those people who claim we never went to the moon.

When you have nothing but insults to offer as argument you have lost. Er, wait...

Originally posted by FMF
When you have nothing but insults to offer as argument you have lost. Er, wait...

I had arguments and insults... I can multi-task

Originally posted by googlefudge
I had arguments and insults... I can multi-task

So can FreakyKBH. And he does. 😉

Originally posted by FMF
So can FreakyKBH. And he does. 😉

I am sorry but when you claim that today we are worse off than they were 3000 yrs ago you are so
beyond ridiculous and idiotic and obviously wrong it's like arguing with someone claiming the sky is
pink with god spots and rain is caused by gold flying unicorns peeing.

I see no reason to dignify someone that far off the reservation with reasonableness there is no point.

FreakyKBH has done nothing but attack Me for my positions rather than my positions and his arguments
have lost all bearing on reality.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am sorry but when you claim that today we are worse off than they were 3000 yrs ago you are so
beyond ridiculous and idiotic and obviously wrong it's like arguing with someone claiming the sky is
pink with god spots and rain is caused by gold flying unicorns peeing.

I see no reason to dignify someone that far off the reservation with reasonablen ...[text shortened]... for my positions rather than my positions and his arguments
have lost all bearing on reality.

Well you disagree with each other, I can see that. But your "When you have nothing but insults to offer as argument you have lost" thing is a standard that must apply to you too if it is to have any put-down traction whatsoever.