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

[guibox]

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?

No, I believe it is trustworthy but at the same time, the bible was written by people living in a certain culture in a specific time. These were not easy times and much of their writing would reflect those times and culture without God's divine stamp on it.

Have you ever looked at Judges 12 with the Levite and his concubine? Do you see God's hand in condoning and encouraging such behavior?

As far as Numbers goes, do you think God enjoys and encourages pillaging, raping, killing women and children and using 'virgins' for pleasure?

Is that the kind of God you serve?

How far do you want to take fundamentalist interpretation of the scriptures?

 

[aiki]

guibox:

Hey! Wanted to comment on a couple of things you wrote.

the bible was written by people living in a certain culture in a specific time. These were not easy times and much of their writing would reflect those times and culture without God's divine stamp on it.

This isn't what Scripture says about itself. We are told that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). In context, this statement refers particularly to the OT.

When you suggest that some of what is written in the Bible is not divinely inspired you allow that anything in Scripture may be assigned a cultural or historical value rather than a divine one. That is, if some of the Bible is not inspired, perhaps none of it is. How does one determine what is cultural/historical and what is inspired? Since all of the Bible rests in one cultural/historical context or another can it not all be dismissed as merely the product of human circumstance? It most surely can and is! Take a secular university course in Biblical literature and this is exactly the perspective that is presented when considering the contents of the Bible. The Bible is not the Word of God; it is merely a remarkable book on par with any other religious text. Rather than sharing life-changing truth, the Bible is just another "interesting read".

Have you ever looked at Judges 12 with the Levite and his concubine? Do you see God's hand in condoning and encouraging such behavior?

As far as Numbers goes, do you think God enjoys and encourages pillaging, raping, killing women and children and using 'virgins' for pleasure?

Is that the kind of God you serve?

What makes you think that the record of these things in Scripture necessarily means they meet with God's approval or enjoyment? (By the way, it is the end of Judges 19, not Judges 12, to which I think you meant to refer.)

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[guibox]

When you suggest that some of what is written in the Bible is not divinely inspired you allow that anything in Scripture may be assigned a cultural or historical value rather than a divine one. That is, if some of the Bible is not inspired, perhaps none of it is. How does one determine what is cultural/historical and what is inspired? Since all of the Bible rests in one cultural/historical context or another can it not all be dismissed as merely the product of human circumstance? It most surely can and is!

So do you:

*not allow women to speak in church or braid their hair?
*stone women and men for adultery
*have multiple wives and can take virgins of your enemies as wives

Do you?

No? Oh, then I guess those things are cultural I guess. Where is God's stamp of approval or disapproval of them? Can't find it? Perhaps because some things in the bible are just the way the culture went.

Does this negate the inspiration of the scriptures? I don't think so. I think God can inspire secular men to make divine thoughts and judgements as well.

I didn't say that God's approval or disapproval had to be there for it to be inspired. That doesn't negate that alot of details and stories that have gone in are not told from cultural context either.

Have you ever looked at Judges 12 with the Levite and his (By the way, it is the end of Judges 19, not Judges 12, to which I think you meant to refer.)

In Christ, Aiki.

My mistake...

 

[Tzalam]

You're not born again, are you, guibox?
ALL Scripture is inspired, God-breathed, and all is trustworthy.
No Scripture is unreliable

We go by the New Testament laws, which, Jesus says, basically, are summed up to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength.
Do you do that?

Aiki is trying to tell you nicely, that your subtle erosion of the
reliability of the Scriptures is what's eating away at the
Christian church today.
A big problem I have with the people who preach today, is, they allow
any version of the bible to be used.
They don't care, they just stopped standing up and being men a long time ago. Most men in the pulpits today wont define right and wrong, either.
So, YOUR "hinting" at the Scriptures being sometimes God inspired, sometimes not, is where the root of the rot begins.
You are helping to undermine the foundations of Christianity. That's wrong.

 

[DivineNames]

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).

Would it not be possible to prevent a woman shouting for help?

 

[Lyric's Dad]

A big problem I have with the people who preach today, is, they allow
any version of the bible to be used.

Sort of off topic but what version do you believe should be used?

 

[Vice]

edit

 

[Vice]

Would it not be possible to prevent a woman shouting for help?

From my last post.

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.

 

[Klee shay]

Things to bear in mind is that in the Old Testiment scripture was written pretty much exclusively for men. It didn't have the politically correct language we try to use today.

Imagine you're a man of God; living in the era of the Old Testiment. When you read the scriptures which say these things - are they not written for a God-fearing man to know his boundaries rather than giving permission to non God-fearing men, to do as they please?

Another thing to remember about the cultural background; is although women were seen as property in the Old Testiment it also demonstrated a man's honour in how he dealt with his property. So these scriptures were written for God-fearing men to know their boundaries and how to deal with dishonourable men.

It wasn't meant for open slather on rape victims. A man of honour, honours everything which is within his rights of ownership. These scriptures were written to distinguish the honourable men from the dishonourable ones and how to deal with them accordingly.

It was a sign of the times when men had absolute power and women had very little. So how do you write scriptures for men with absolute power over their wives/daughters - you write them according to honour. Do you honour your possessions? Do you honour another man's possessions? Do your wives/daughters have honour worthy of your household's honour?

It was written for God-fearing men and their families; a sign of those times. Now it is not appliccable however, since God wrote a whole new convernant with Jesus on behalf of mankind - doing away with the old.

 

[aiki]

guibox:

You wrote:

So do you:

*not allow women to speak in church or braid their hair?
*stone women and men for adultery
*have multiple wives and can take virgins of your enemies as wives

Do you?

No? Oh, then I guess those things are cultural I guess.

This would be a conclusion arrived at through ignorance of the gradually unfolding nature of the revelation of God's plan for dealing with mankind's sinfulness written in Scripture.

Where is God's stamp of approval or disapproval of them? Can't find it?

Actually, I can. But I would like you to provide me specific references for the little list you gave above, first.

Perhaps because some things in the bible are just the way the culture went.

No, I don't think so. I'll ask you again: How do you decide what in the Bible is merely cultural/historical and what is divinely inspired? Since all of Scripture exists within some cultural framework or other, can it not all be dismissed as merely the writing of men? If not, why not?

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Tzalam]

A big problem I have with the people who preach today, is, they allow
any version of the bible to be used.

Sort of off topic but what version do you believe should be used?

You may read my intro letter in the new members thread.
The answer to your question is there, LD.
LD, I see you're in Utah. Are you a Mormon, or were you
one?

 

[Ruben]

Anyone notice the contrast between the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament? It seems as though the OT God can't hardly wait to kill something and the NT God, as demonstrated in Jesus, cares so deeply about each individual that even the hair on our heads are numbered. The NT God takes notice when a sparrow falls. The OT God demanded that animals be killed on a regular basis. How can anyone say that there are no conflicts within the Scriptures?

 

[Lyric's Dad]

A big problem I have with the people who preach today, is, they allow
any version of the bible to be used.

Sort of off topic but what version do you believe should be used?

You may read my intro letter in the new members thread.
The answer to your question is there, LD.
LD, I see you're in Utah. Are you a Mormon, or were you
one?

I will check out your intro. when I get a few moments. As for the mormon thing, yes. I was raised mormon and was an "elder" in the mormon church. I have been through the temple and married there as well. I wore the garments for a while and all that stuff. God called me out of that and saved my soul. I now am just a sinner saved by grace.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Anyone notice the contrast between the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament? It seems as though the OT God can't hardly wait to kill something and the NT God, as demonstrated in Jesus, cares so deeply about each individual that even the hair on our heads are numbered. The NT God takes notice when a sparrow falls. The OT God demanded that animals be killed on a regular basis. How can anyone say that there are no conflicts within the Scriptures?

The problem is that you have no understanding of the Bible and what it is saying.

 

[antitox]

Anyone notice the contrast between the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament? It seems as though the OT God can't hardly wait to kill something and the NT God, as demonstrated in Jesus, cares so deeply about each individual that even the hair on our heads are numbered. The NT God takes notice when a sparrow falls. The OT God demanded that animals be killed on a regular basis. How can anyone say that there are no conflicts within the Scriptures?

There is no difference. Law had to come first. The law and standard of God was brought in to show that in order for God and man to dwell together, as-is, required man to make atonement for his sinful condition just for this scenario to even be feasible. Secondly, this revealed how far man was below the God's holy nature. Man's selfish condition is such that it showed man that God does not behave like humans and that even His thoughts are way above the way humans think or even have the capability to perceive. But this scenario had to happen so that man would know that God isn't as man imagines and that the need for a way to fellowship with God had to be provided since it has been proven that man cannot measure up to God.
It is even said today "let Him come down and show Himself, and then I'll believe in Him." The OT shows that He already did that. Even then, many rejected Him as a result of their own selfishness. This was further proven by those who rejected Jesus when God made the New Covenant:

John 1:9-10) "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home and his own people received him not."

 

[ThinkerMan]

Anyone notice the contrast between the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament? It seems as though the OT God can't hardly wait to kill something and the NT God, as demonstrated in Jesus, cares so deeply about each individual that even the hair on our heads are numbered. The NT God takes notice when a sparrow falls. The OT God demanded that animals be killed on a regular basis. How can anyone say that there are no conflicts within the Scriptures?

There is no difference. Law had to come first. The law and standard of God was brought in to show that in order for God and man to dwell together, as-is, required man to make atonement for his sinful condition just for this scenario to even be feasible. Secondly, this revealed how far man was below the God's holy nature. Man's selfish condition is such that it showed man that God does not behave like humans and that even His thoughts are way above the way humans think or even have the capability to perceive. But this scenario had to happen so that man would know that God isn't as man imagines and that the need for a way to fellowship with God had to be provided since it has been proven that man cannot measure up to God.
It is even said today "let Him come down and show Himself, and then I'll believe in Him." The OT shows that He already did that. Even then, many rejected Him as a result of their own selfishness. This was further proven by those who rejected Jesus when God made the New Covenant:

John 1:9-10) "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home and his own people received him not."

Two points..

1. The law did not come first. Well, one law did (don't eat that!), but that only lasted a short time.

God goes through a variety of sets of rules before the law comes in.

1. Eden Rules
2. Rules Change Out of Eden
3. Kill almost everyone with the flood...promised not to do it again
4. Confuses the languages.

All this happened before the law. Each seperate and distinct times when the "rules", or at least the circumstances, changed prior to the implementation of the law.

Then, later with Jesus, the rules changed again.

2. "had to"?

I don't know if God would be happy with you painting him into a corner. How can "had to" apply to an omnipotent God?

Jesus could have simply come right away to take care of sins. It's not like those in Noah's time weren't degenerate enough to kill him well before all the law stuff.

 

[Drew]

The whole question of how to understand the Bible is indeed a very interesting and important one.

Despite my earnest desires to see the whole Bible as "inerrant", I have reluctantly come to believe otherwise.

I will not (in this post, anyway) address any of the problematic texts. Instead, I wish to address the argument that "if you can't believe it all, you can't believe any of it". This kind of argument suggests that refusal to believe that God ordered wholesale slaughter of entire peoples (as I am pretty sure the OT indicates) means that one cannot accept the reality of Jesus' life, ministry, death, and resurrection.

I have always thought that this argument was rather obviously flawed insofar as it so obviously begs the question at issue. I really don't know anything about how decisions were made as to which texts were determined to be canon. But the canon was presumably not handed to us directly from the hand of God.

So it seems unescapable that a belief in the inerrancy of all the texts of the OT and NT is partly a matter of faith. I will be the first to say that there is a clear unity of theme across the 66 books. However, there is simply not enough "hard" evidence to warrant the position of total inerrancy (to my understanding anyway).

I suppose my point is that those who support inerrancy should at least make some kind of a case, rather than appealing to the obviously question-begging argument that one "has to believe it all, or none of it".

This kind of argument strikes me as being at the best naive, and at the worst, dishonest - I can think of no reason to believe that the only 2 possible positions are complete acceptance or rejection of everything.

The "you have to believe it all or reject it all" argument reminds of the infamous "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument in relation to Jesus. I will assume you all know this argument. It has a rather obvious flaw - it represents that the only choices are that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Son of God. But there is another possibility that is rather obvious - namely that the material in the gospels is simply not accurate - that a lot of embellishing went on.

I do not believe that there was embellishment - but it is highly disingenuous to suggest that the seeker has to choose among the three options presented. Same deal with the "you have to believe it all or reject it all" argument - such an argument assumes something important without making that assumption explicit.

 

[Abiyah]

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?

Hello !

Oh MY! These verses in which you have quoted did not say anything about a man FORCING HER, nor did they say anything about the damsel CRYING OUT, screaming, calling out for help. You missed the verses that directly refer to rape. The Bible is very clear and to the point on what the punishment of a rapist should be. It is written

Deuteronomy 22:25-27
" 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 [ Wait .... what did that say ? Oh so then a rapist is to be executed, I see ! ]; 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 [ when he lies & waits, when he premeditates a criminal homicide- Deuteronomy 19:11-12] and slayeth him [ murders him], EVEN SO IS THIS MATTER [ the penalty is the same... that being death, execution]. For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel CRIED [cried out, screamed], and there was none to save her. "

So then we see that rapist are to be put to death, executed, and to think our society lets them go, so they can rape another innocent person,sad! But one thing I do know is that they will all answer to God, no one gets away with rape, God will see to that.

Abiyah

 

[ThinkerMan]

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?

Hello !

Oh MY! These verses in which you have quoted did not say anything about a man FORCING HER, nor did they say anything about the damsel CRYING OUT, screaming, calling out for help. You missed the verses that directly refer to rape. The Bible is very clear and to the point on what the punishment of a rapist should be. It is written

Deuteronomy 22:25-27
" 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 [ Wait .... what did that say ? Oh so then a rapist is to be executed, I see ! ]; 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 [ when he lies & waits, when he premeditates a criminal homicide- Deuteronomy 19:11-12] and slayeth him [ murders him], EVEN SO IS THIS MATTER [ the penalty is the same... that being death, execution]. For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel CRIED [cried out, screamed], and there was none to save her. "

So then we see that rapist are to be put to death, executed, and to think our society lets them go, so they can rape another innocent person,sad! But one thing I do know is that they will all answer to God, no one gets away with rape, God will see to that.

Abiyah

I guess this is how it goes:

An Engaged Woman:

1. Raped in City - Scream for help = Kill Man
2. Raped in City - No Scream for help = Kill Both
3. Raped in Country - Scream for help = Kill Man
4. Raped in Country - No Scream for help = Kill Man

A non-engaged woman:

1. Raped anywhere (Scream or No Scream) = Marriage and pay the father.

 

[DivineNames]

Would it not be possible to prevent a woman shouting for help?

From my last post.

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.

My apologies for not reading your post in full.

I don't know if the Bible says anywhere that judges should use their discretion in such matters. Do you?