Now this is what you call truthsmakin'!
Amazing!! Turbo has the memory of a robot! This is clearly one of the better posts you will ever read. Great job Turbo!
Amazing!! Turbo has the memory of a robot! This is clearly one of the better posts you will ever read. Great job Turbo!
:first:Verse 24 is not about rape, it's about adultery. That is why you binned your copy of The Message a year ago:Ok so if you rape a woman in the city you kill em both, because she "could" have allowed it, no problem with putting your hand over her mouth but it's possible you she could have asked for it so kill em both, nice... your rules not mine.
But if you rape a woman in the country then you kill just the man ?
Why, because she couldn't have called out.
Where is rape then wrong against the women. Answer me that, where is it stated or even impled that if you rape a woman you have done HER a wrong ?
Because you missed out the rest of deut where it tells you why it was wrong....
in 24 where you only kill the man it's because "the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife" WHY even mention the neighbor ?
(I emboldened the "extra bit" you referred to.)DoogieTalons via PM said:It's called "The Message" Copyright 1993 I think it was a present from a family member.
"If a man comes upon a virgin in town, a girl who is engaged to another man, and sleeps with her, take both of them to the town gate and stone them until they die—the girl because she didn't yell out for help in the town and the man because he raped her, violating the fiancée of his neighbor. You must purge the evil from among you. "
So the crime seems not as a moral outrage upon the woman just an outrage against her fiancee.
I have researched it's translation against other translations and it's the only one that adds that extra bit in to lead you.
I think I'll bin it now I have a KJV.
So a year ago, you conceded that Deuteronomy 22:24 was not about rape, but that the particular interpretation of the Bible you were reading was rubbish.
Yet here you are, back to insisting that in the Bible God commands some rape victims to be put to death, eventually citing (but not quoting) Deuteronomy 22:24 as your evidence.
Of COURSE that verse, which is about a betrothed woman who has consensual sex with another man, cites the woman's fiancé as the victim of the crime. He's the one who was cheated on!
You continue:
When a woman commits adultery, her husband is the victim. That's why we call it cheating on her husband.surley you just need to say he humbled her... but we don't hear that until deut 28... This doesn't sound an important distinction but it's not becaue you humbled her... it because you humbled the neighbors wife the wrong doing is on the neighbor....
In the scenario described in verse 28, the woman has no husband or fiancé.if it meant her then it would be as deut 28 where the man is punished for humbling HER...
That's only fair, since he used her and effectively attempted to rob the father of the bride-price.but then he has to marry her and pay his dues to the father...
I've already explained how the Hebrew terminology is different from the "force" described in the verse 25, how there is a parallel passage with "entices" in Exodus, and how words have different meanings in different contexts, and that sometimes idioms don't translate well. (He swept her off her feet, and she cried, "Take me." I'm not describing a woman surrendering to a rapist, but someone who speaks another language might interpret it that way, especially if he's thick headed or he's got an axe to grind.)and in deut 28 what else could "Seize" mean but lack of concent.
Wrong again. The ONLY passage that describes the penalty for rape does not even mention the victim's father or husband, but does compare rape to murder:The bible is not clear on why rape is wrong other than for the husbands wife or the fathers child. Not because it's just plain wrong.
Deuteronomy 22This is only, what, the fourth time this has been pointed out to you in this thread. (See posts 10, 20, and 21.)
25 “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.
And by the way, do you notice that God goes out of His way to spell out that a woman who is raped is an innocent victim of a horrendous crime and should therefore by no means be punished? Wouldn't that be an odd thing to say immediately after commanding that a rape victim who is attacked under slightly different circumstances should be put to death? I realize you have a bias against God and all, but come on!
Saying that it's a capital crime similar to murder, and that the victim should not be punished because she is innocent isn't enough?It's a big book, you'd think what with all the jealous God stuff, the mass genocides and the wanton incest he'd have at least said somewhere that rape is an abomination.. but it doesn't.
Where a crime is committed is irrelevant. It is not ambiguous; you just want it to be.It just asks you do what's right and either pay up or kill em both... or kill the man if he couldn't have got found out. Ambiguous to say the least. Nothing about if he raped her in a city or if it was consentual outside.
As I wrote to you via PM on April 17, 2007:
Verse 20 is about adultery. (both guilty/executed)
Verses 23-24 equate a betrothed couple to a married couple regarding infidelity. (both guilty/executed)
Verses 25-27 are about rape, and draw a distinction between consensual and forced sex in order to protect rape victims. (Only the rapist should be punished)
Verses 28-29 are about pre-marital sex between unbetrothed people (generally, they should get married. See also Ex. 22:16-17)
There is a passage in the Bible about what to do is an axe head comes loose while someone is working and kills a man. But it doesn't say what to do if the tool is a hammer. Or if the person killed is a woman or a boy or a girl. Does that mean that if a hammer's head comes loose and strikes a little girl in the head, we have no way of knowing what God wants to be done? Maybe you think so. But no, the hammer passage uses a particular scenario to establishes a principle.
Likewise, whether rape or adultery is committed in a city or a countryside or on a space shuttle, it doesn't matter. The countryside setting gives a likely case where a woman could be raped without anyone around, and the city setting gives a case where a woman screaming that she's being attacked would probably get noticed by some nearby people. It's not that complicated.
Doogie please answer these questions specifically and directly:
Will you concede as you did a year ago that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is not about rape, but about consensual (pre-marital) adultery?
Will you concede that Deuteronomy 22:25-27 makes it crystal clear that rape is a horrendous capital crime, like murder, and that rape victims are innocent and should not be punished?
Will you concede that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 bear a striking resemblance to Exodus 22:16-17, and that it uses different terminology than Deuteronomy 22:25-27 (forces vs. seizes), and that there might just be an idiom there that you misunderstood to mean rape that could just as well have meant seduces, especially in light of the similarity of Ex 22:16, and in light of the fact that the passage immediately before it likened rape to murder?
