Bible Study The God of rape! How do you reconcile these versus?

[Soma-Sight]

The proper way to rape! (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Rape victim gets the AXE. OUCH! (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Does God care for PEOPLE in these verese or PROPERTY?

 

[peace4all]

like ive said.

reading the bible, is what made me an atheist.

in context, out of context, whateverm t is scary.

 

[and_1_1_1]

omg is that what it says in the bible?

 

[supernac]

KJV does not use the term rape.

 

[peace4all]

as versions change, the actual words get palyed down, so it doesnt sound as bad.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT


(Judges 5:30 NAB)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

 

[Quath]

The basic idea was that a woman was a man's property. So the rules followed from that idea.

So if a virgin (owned by her father) is raped. The rapist must marry her and pay 50 shekals (not adjusted for inflation I might add) and may not divorce her. If the man was married, he gets a new wife.

If the woman was not a virgin and not bethrothed, then she would get killed from Deuteronomy 22:20-21. So it is in her best interest to act like she was a virgin and marry the man.

If the woman was bethrothed, then it depends on if she was raped or cheated. If she was in the city, she had to cry out for help or else they concluded that she wanted it. In the country, thet give her the benefi of the doubt. Either way, the man hurt another man's property and must die. If the woman was willing, then she must die also.

The problem also is that virginity is determined by the hymen, which can break for reasons other than sex. So I wondered how many women were killed because God placed a hymen test that is known to fail.

So it looks to me to be an entirely a property type of argument.

Moralistically, it would have been better if God had said something like "I will bestow blessings on those that marry a raped woman." That way the woman does not have to marry her rapist.

Quath

 

[Muad'Dib]

Pointing out a few verses of a book written by man, even if it was, as I believe, inspired by God does not mean God endorses what you've written here.

 

[bibleberean]

Here is what the verses and the ones before them actually say.

KJV

Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Deuteronomy 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

Deuteronomy 22:26 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 neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Deuteronomy 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;

Deuteronomy 22:29 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.

Verse 22:29 does not necessarily mean that he forcefully raped her. It might but I don't think so because of the words "and they be found".

They be found indicates that she may have consented.

Since she was not betrothed or married and the father was paid (a fine) and there would be what is called in the southern states a "shotgun marriage" and the man was not allowed to "put her away" for any reason as long as he lived.

The verses before may indicate that if she didn't cry out she was guilty of consent.

These verses certainly do not advocate rape or a "proper way" to go about raping virgins.

 

[bibleberean]

This is so typical of people who don't have a clue as to what the bible is really saying.

Peace4all uses this verse to say that the bible advocates rape...

Judges 5:28-30 The mother of Sisera looked out at a window, and cried through the lattice, Why is his chariot so long in coming? why tarry the wheels of his chariots? Her wise ladies answered her, yea, she returned answer to herself, Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?

Sisera was an enemy of Israel defeated in battle. Sisera is his mother and she is wondering why her son hasn't returned from his battle not knowing that he has been killed by a woman while he slept in her tent.

It isn't about God advocating the rape of a conquered people it is about an enemy of Israel. Sisera is a heathen and his heathen mother thinks her son is late because he is cavorting around with conquered women...

Such ignorance...

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Muad'Dib]

Excellent post bibleberean. Good work, I agree completely.

 

[Homeskillet]

Excellent post bibleberean. Good work, I agree completely.

Amen...THAT'S truth!

Thanks, Robert. :

 

[Quath]

They be found indicates that she may have consented.

That "lay hold of her" means rape. The "they be found" means that the act was discovered.

Look at several translations:

NIV: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

NASB: 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,

NLT: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged,

KJV: 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;

So I would say from the translations, it is rape. I don't see how that can be consentual.

Quath

 

[Vice]

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 seems to suggest that the male and the engaged woman had consensual sex. For her to cry out in any way, it would have meant that she was an unwilling participant being raped. In a time without soundproof windows, 50 x 150 ft residential lots, and ample space between buildings, she would have been heard and helped. Her silence, however, implied her willingness (while committed to another).

Verses 25 and following seem to indicate that "willingness" and sexual consent are important in ascertaining guilt or innocence, as these verses deal with the 'city' victim versus the 'country' victim. The country victim wasn't to be punished, because even if she screamed, no one would hear her.

The passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 seems cruel when interpreted through a modern day worldview (why pair up a victim and attacker?), but perhaps that is the problem in attempting to understand it.

The deuteronomic laws seem to demonstrate a fixation with sexual purity (particularly for women). This would be a good indication that a woman who was sexually violated was highly likely to live an abandoned spinster life. With no husband--and therefore, no children -- she would truly be an unmarried social outcast.

Thus, even though the prescription in Deut 22:28-29 might seem cruel to us in this day and age, it was God's way of protecting the woman. The attacker had to live with his crime by marrying the woman he raped, and the woman would not be left as an abandoned social outcast because she was sexually violated, and thus, impure or "damaged goods." If the rape resulted in a child, the woman wouldn't have to take care of the baby alone. God provided for her through this law.

Ravi Zacharias wrote a rather excellent (and lengthy) response to the Deuteronomic laws regarding rape.

As with any laws, there are loopholes and grey areas (ie, what if she couldn't scream because he had his hand over her mouth?). I assume that's why God appointed judges over the people. But it's probably better to try and understand WHY certain laws were written rather than use them as pretexts for one's own agenda.

 

[antitox]

Thank you, Vice and BB. Great to have informed input concerning the scriptures.

 

[guibox]

Yes Vice. Many seem to ignore the meaning behind 'because she didn't cry out'. In other words, she was not being raped but committing fornication which was why she was stoned.

Numbers 31 is hard reading and no doubt leaves us scratching our heads. However, I would agree with a previous poster who said that what is in the bible doesn't necessarily mean it is condoned by God. There is a lot of culture wrapped up in the writing of the scriptures that must be sifted with the divinely inspired.

Just look at Judges 12 (?11) about the Levite and his concubine. That is pretty harsh reading but it is merely telling a story, not divine theology of God's character.

Unfortunately, many take this knee jerk reaction to scripture in many other instances of scripture and that is why we have the immortality of the soul doctrine among other heresies.

 

[antitox]

Numbers 31 is hard reading and no doubt leaves us scratching our heads. However, I would agree with a previous poster who said that what is in the bible doesn't necessarily mean it is condoned by God. There is a lot of culture wrapped up in the writing of the scriptures that must be sifted with the divinely inspired.

This is so true. The law was weaved into the culture of the people over time and was very much a part of their lifestyle. It is so easy for non-believers to miss what is actually being said or to see it in its true form.
The bible does not record all the various scenarios, evidence, and testimonies that were presented, and many do not consider the massive array of judgments that had to have taken place in such a large number of people; if recorded, the bible would have to have many volumes.

 

[Nikki]

Soma,

Can you find nothing better to do than to ruffle feathers?

Go find a hobby. Ride a bike. Take a hike. :
(Sorry, that sounded funny.)

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Soma,

Can you find nothing better to do than to ruffle feathers?

Go find a hobby. Ride a bike. Take a hike. :
(Sorry, that sounded funny.)

Or maybe you could attend a Christian Church and hear the Word.

 

[Nikki]

Soma,

Can you find nothing better to do than to ruffle feathers?

Go find a hobby. Ride a bike. Take a hike. :
(Sorry, that sounded funny.)

Or maybe you could attend a Christian Church and hear the Word.

Yep.

Soma,

Have you EVER been to church since becoming a christian? You were once athiest, then went on some camping trip and became christian because of some "experience" if I remember correctly.

But, have you ever attended church on a regular basis? It's so easy to interpret the word in many ways, IMO. The bible kind of bounces around and just because John says one thing, doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. You may have to read into Luke to know what John is saying and so on.

I am far from someone that understands the bible. Even though I grew up in church, I still don't understand a lot of it completely. I'm not good at listening to someone explain it either. That's why I like coming here. I've got so many people that I can trust on here that I know attend church on a regular basis.

 

[Tzalam]

Numbers 31 is hard reading and no doubt leaves us scratching our heads. However, I would agree with a previous poster who said that what is in the bible doesn't necessarily mean it is condoned by God. There is a lot of culture wrapped up in the writing of the scriptures that must be sifted with the divinely inspired.

so, you don't believe the Bible is trustworthy, do you?