stovebolts
The Torah does not forbid circumcision on the Sabbath. Also why would Passover fall on the Sabbath?
Tanakh is clear on that situation with the priest: "What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God" (
Micah 6:8). The priest should have ritually cleansed himself once he was able.
As for the showbread, the Deuteronomist (who, as esteemed scholar Richard Freidman argues, wrote Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) presents David as a new lawgiver, as seen in the references to the "law of David." Since he gives new laws on ritual worship and the temple, he is qualified to take the showbread and give it to his men. Whether this is consistent with the view presented by the authors of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers - that's a more complex question.
Ok, I tire of this. You are partially right and partially wrong. I hope you are willing to learn something.
Verse 25 states that the man who rapes a woman must be put to death, the woman is innocent.
Why is she innocent? Because she cried out. Please see verse 27.
Verse 28 and 29 address the woman who did not cry out.
Why would a woman not cry out? And what does it mean, “cried out”? See
Genesis 4:10.
the Kathubah dowry is 50 shekels.
Moral of the story.. if your a virgin and your not married and you have sex, your as good as married. The man who has sex with her has violated her and the family. See
Deuteronomy 22:13-18
In
Genesis 4:10, Abel is the victim. So also in
Deut. 22:28-29. v. 28-29 do not address whether she did or did not cry out, unlike v. 24, where she is specifically said to not cry out. So why is there no specification in v. 28-29? Likely because it is irrelevant. The "punishment" would have been the same either way. That last point: I agree that that is what is taught, and it also includes that if you are an unmarried virgin who is raped, you are as good as married. Good thing we don't have that today.
I know what you stated earlier and my point is that you're wrong--it is not rape. Just because the idea of rape is in an earlier verse doesn't mean that every verse that follows is rape. The whole point of the passage is to give guidance for justice for different violations.
That is not my only argument for why every verse that follows is rape. In fact, the general section in Deuteronomy addresses also consensual adultery, and a woman who does not cry out (v. 24), indicating consent as well, at least consent to some extent.
You need to learn to actually study, rather than simply read. There are two different words being used in verses 25 and 28. In verse 25, "force" is chazaq, and means "to be strong, to prevail, to take strong hold." In verse 28, "seize" is taphas, and means "to lay hold of, to hold." Copan is correct when he states that the verb in verse 28 is weaker than that in verse 25, where it is clearly rape. This also begs the question as to why two different verbs are used if the intent in meaning was the same. This supports Copan's assertion. Further to his point, is that verse 28 mentions that "they are found," not "he was found." That means both are guilty, not just him. This, again, suggests that although there is pressure from the man, there is some willingness (or eventual giving in) on the part of the girl, and so is akin to seduction and statutory rape.
"They are found" does not occur in
Exodus 22:16-17.
Exodus 22:16-17 does not use either word meaning to lay hold of, which weakens Copan's argument. My earlier post should have demonstrated study and not just reading; you can claim, maybe rightly, that the study was inadequate, but I still did study. So if you want me to conduct a word study on taphas:
- Genesis 39:12 in which Potiphar's wife attempts to compel Joseph to have sex with her
- Deut. 21:19 has forcing a rebellious child to be executed, using the word taphas
- Deut. 20:19 uses the word to refer to making war against a city, obviously a violent action. See also Joshua 8:8.
- Joshua 8:23 uses the word for forcible execution of a king. Used frequently to refer to forcible capture of opponents, e.g., 1 Kings 18:40 and many other places.
As we can see it is perfectly reasonable to use the word to refer to violent forcing, even in a sexual context, and the usage of the term "violated" which is not in
Exodus 22:16-17, all suggest that the case described is indeed rape. On the other hand, it is not specified if she cried out or not, which might indicate that the case would apply regardless of it was rape or not. In other words, it would still apply in the case of rape. We do not have laws like this today.
I have shown that they are essentially the same.
Hopefully I have just shown that the word does not refer to any loving seduction. The word, though, may be intentionally moderate, in order to accurately capture both the case of rape and consent (in
Deut. 22:28, the word is stronger than in Exodus 22 yet milder than
Deut. 22:24); yet the law would still demand that the woman marry her rapist, as I've been arguing all along.
Copan cites another source for the idea that the girl has some say in the matter. Perhaps it ultimately comes from extant Jewish commentary. The point of the text is for the girl's well-being, to make sure that if someone violates her, she is going to be looked after.
So he cites an extra-biblical source to defend his argument, without even explaining the source, nor defending the idea that the source is even accurate? Many people have added many things to the Bible to make it more palatable; merely citing another source in order to argue this, as Copan does, is inadequate.
And would we
really want her to be looked after by a rapist? Does this seem like a wise law to have today? And why is it that we need these apologetic commentaries to reveal to us that that is the reason, and why does the text not actually say that explicitly?
A virgin who “cried out” was raped against her will and the perpetrator was killed for such an abomination.
The death penalty, as we can see consistently throughout the Torah, was:
- Administered in the case of consensual adultery
- Administered in the case of nonconsensual adultery (i.e., rape with the victim married or engaged), but only to the rapist.
- Not administered in the case of rape that is non-adulterous.
As we can see, the death penalty is administered for adultery, and not rape; only administered for rape when there is also adultery. Therefore the "abomination" is adultery, not rape. Now, if you want to argue that rape deserves execution, then that's great (I don't believe in the death penalty except potentially for murder, maybe), but the Torah does not argue this. To be quite clear, I believe that rape is indeed abominable. Yet the Torah authors do not; they view adultery as abominable. And I'm not the one who holds to the Bible.
Judaism looked forward to a Messiah or savior or liberator that would reign, taking the place of David and bringing the Jewish people back to their former glory. This is evident throughout the gospels as Jesus' disciples failed to understand what Jesus' true purpose on earth was. They were actually disappointed when He was arrested and died on that cross. Hence their abandonment and unbelief when He was arrested, tortured, died, and risen. It wasn't until after He arose and opened their hearts to the Scriptures that they truly began to understand what the Messiah really was.
None of the gospels were written by Jesus' apostles, and in fact, at least one of them (Mark) appears to be very critical of the apostles, speaking of their hardened hearts. By the time the gospels were written (right after A.D. 70 at the earliest for Mark, as recognized by most scholars), Christianity would have been cemented, and the gospel writers wanted to portray a radical spiritual change as an apologetic strategy. (Which, apparently, they succeeded at, since you're arguing this now.)
