Another horrific OT scripture? Rape?

[eNathans]

Deu 22:28
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
Deu 22:29
he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

NIV Translation

Can some "good-book" Bible-Believing advocator give me some exuse for why this scripture doesnt mean what it really said, even in acient times? That's what I usually get from Christians.

[nzguy]

Well you have to put those verses in the context of the rest of chapter 28 of Deuteronomy.. then the meaning becomes more apparent and clear.

Also.. you have chosen NIV.. sometimes NIV is not the best when it comes to in-depth study of the bible.. because it uses alot of paraphrasing.. rather than direct translation.

It is better than some of the old English bibles for clarity in alot of verses.. but bibles like the KJV and NKJV have stuck to direct translation methods.. and if you want to study in depth doctrine.. they make more sense.

but as in those Deuteronomy verses.. it is the underlying message and meaning that you are looking for.. not the surface practice.. but WHY they were practicing it.

Sometimes there are covenants and laws that were part of the system of faith back in the OT which, while the salvation message had not changed.. the ways people live out their faith have changed with the New Testament coming in to play. An example is of animal sacrifices-- they were symbols of Christ's ultimate sacrifice.. looking ahead to His coming..

they were done away with once Christ came.. there was no longer a need for the blood of an animal.. because the ultimate innocent Lamb of God had shed His blood for us.

So it is with other covenants God had with His people.. with Israel and others.. that at different points in time.. they changed or were rendered obsolete.

For the case of Deuteronomy... the laws in place around marriage and adultery and cleaness and uncleaness.. all that.. were part of a system of law where God's people could be kept safe and preserved through generations..

alot of the laws in those times were for sanitary, health, and mental health reasons!

I haven't looked at those verses you mention in Deuteronomy yet.. but the key thing is to remember key points of biblical interpretation..

* the bible interprets itself
*scripture must be compared with scripture.. line upon line.. precept upon precept
* it is God's Word
* if one verse is fuzzy or seems to mean something.. it has to be put alongside other verses mentioning the same concepts ...

This is the DBS method of bible study-- 'don't be stupid!'

[twistedsketch]

The father has the right of refusal, according to Exodus 22:17. Meaning that the onus is not on her to marry the scumbag, but the scumbag has to fix what he broke. And if the father refuses, which most fathers today would, then they don't have to marry but he has to pay the fine. This is what a rabbi told me when I asked him about this.

[BigNorsk]

That's correct, see in this case it's nonconsensual sex because the father is over his daughter and needs to give his consent. If it was forcible rape, the girl would have cried out and the man would be taken care in ways quite different than marriage.

The father in that case still, even with sex having taken place could forbid the marriage. The man since he could consent and was responsible for his actions still paid the bride price.

The reason the man could not divorce the woman is that basically he had branded himself untrustworthy and willing to try and get sex without having responsibility for it. Due to that, he was not to be trusted as far as divorce either.

The whole thing can seem confusing but it's much more related to statuatory rape, sex with someone who cannot consent, such as a minor, or someone mentally incompetant, than forcible rape. It rape because just like our laws would say a 12 year old girl cannot give legal consent for sex or marriage. It used to be in a lot of the US parents could give consent for marriage with even quite young children but that is changing more over time.

Marv

[7angel]

We must all take responsibility for our actions, and if we do not want, somehow man will have to comply.

It is a lesson we must learn and it is God's will.

In addition, it should be placed in the ancient times and customs.

[Nadiine]

The act of Sexual intercourse is sacred and it is a covenant made thru the act itself.
These rape laws God sets out prove how serious God is about sexual unity btwn 2 people.

Also, what most fail to realize is CULTURE. A non virgin would have most likely ended up a nonmarried woman for life. There was protection in marriage where she would have some security which is another aspect in this.
This provided the woman at least a future life of possibly having children where she may not have if no one would have her after her virginity was gone. (children in that culture were imperative - one thing women wanted & lived for was to have children)

The problem here is that you're attributing modern culture to a culture that existed 5000 years ago - when times were very barbaric in general. You just cannot do that.

And I'd also raise the point that today we love to think we're so civilized - yet we pass laws to murder infants in the womb - even partially birth them and kill them 1/2 way out the birth canal! This is "civil"??

Euthanasia of the elderly? Pedophiles not being imprisoned by liberalist judges? human cloning, stem cell research, open homosexuality now marrying legally, legal prostitution -- & the lists go on.
How about in this nation, a rape victim becomes the focus of scrutiny as they try to paint her as promiscuous or trampy, etc.
The lack of proper justice is staggering anymore.

All I can say is, we're not near as pure & innocent as we'd love to paint ourselves out to be in what we do, condone & allow morally either.
We just pick & choose what we find acceptable or not in each era and area we live.

[Wade Smith]

Deu 22:28
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
Deu 22:29
he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

NIV Translation

Can some "good-book" Bible-Believing advocator give me some exuse for why this scripture doesnt mean what it really said, even in acient times? That's what I usually get from Christians.

First of all, because that's not a good translation of that passage. Its a terrible translation.

In verse 25 the concept of "rape" is addressed, because it says, "and the man force her". In that case, the Bible says that the man is to be put to death.

In verse 28 and 29, it is really talking about a man "enticing" a woman who is not engaged/betrothed, in other words, they both went willingly.


Let scripture interpret scripture.

Exodus 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

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;


Now, "Lay hold on" is a little firmer language than "entice", but still, it does not at all bear the context of "Rape", particularly since "rape in the city" and "rape in the field" were addressed already in the previous paragraphs.

"Lay hold on" is very much like "entice". It is like one lover grabing another by the hand and leading them to a secret place.

This shows why some Bible versions just plain suck. KJV FTW!


Basicly, it's the context of two lovers who were not officially betrothed, and they lose themselves and have sex. It is wrong and sinful, but it is not "worthy of death" because it isn't the same thing as adultery or rape.

The man is required to marry her because of the fact that nobody else WOULD marry her under the Old Covenant. Anyone else would have considered her a harlot, even though she was not.

[MaidforHim]

That's correct, see in this case it's nonconsensual sex because the father is over his daughter and needs to give his consent. If it was forcible rape, the girl would have cried out and the man would be taken care in ways quite different than marriage.

The father in that case still, even with sex having taken place could forbid the marriage. The man since he could consent and was responsible for his actions still paid the bride price.

The reason the man could not divorce the woman is that basically he had branded himself untrustworthy and willing to try and get sex without having responsibility for it. Due to that, he was not to be trusted as far as divorce either.

The whole thing can seem confusing but it's much more related to statuatory rape, sex with someone who cannot consent, such as a minor, or someone mentally incompetant, than forcible rape. It rape because just like our laws would say a 12 year old girl cannot give legal consent for sex or marriage. It used to be in a lot of the US parents could give consent for marriage with even quite young children but that is changing more over time.

Marv

Perfectly said. Thank you brother. :thumbsup:

[Artificial Intelligence]

The problem here is that you're attributing modern culture to a culture that existed 5000 years ago - when times were very barbaric in general. You just cannot do that.

And I'd also raise the point that today we love to think we're so civilized - yet we pass laws to murder infants in the womb - even partially birth them and kill them 1/2 way out the birth canal! This is "civil"??...I was going to say... hah, you think it is any better now? Then I read that second paragraph of course, but still had to say it ;)

I believe it is worst now than it was back then. There is the natural law of course, things that man is just not suppose to do, but does more frequently now. We live in a culture of death, the innocent are slain and the general populous doesn't even bat an eye... other than to promote it. False doctrines abound, genocides rage, men and women chasing after strange flesh(same sex), witchcraft and murder have become wholesome entertainment which runs through the minds of many. If the lights went out, I think the western culture would implode, seriously.

Well what was I going to say about the topic....... oh yeah, I'm not Jewish, I did not take away the eternal covenants that were made to the Jews by God, I am not bound by the law. This about that is meaningless to me other than to see how God dealt with his children of Israel which the church is NOT. It's their law, not mine. The law was fulfilled by Christ upon the cross. Their laws were strict to show that any other way than by Christ leads to death. The law cannot save.

[Nadiine]

...I was going to say... hah, you think it is any better now? Then I read that second paragraph of course, but still had to say it ;)

I believe it is worst now than it was back then. There is the natural law of course, things that man is just not suppose to do, but does more frequently now. We live in a culture of death, the innocent are slain and the general populous doesn't even bat an eye... other than to promote it. False doctrines abound, genocides rage, men and women chasing after strange flesh(same sex), witchcraft and murder have become wholesome entertainment which runs through the minds of many. If the lights went out, I think the western culture would implode, seriously.

Well what was I going to say about the topic....... oh yeah, I'm not Jewish, I did not take away the eternal covenants that were made to the Jews by God, I am not bound by the law. This about that is meaningless to me other than to see how God dealt with his children of Israel which the church is NOT. It's their law, not mine. The law was fulfilled by Christ upon the cross. Their laws were strict to show that any other way than by Christ leads to death. The law cannot save.
:thumbsup: That's partly the point of law for sure -- if you go back prior to when the Torah was given, Israel was essentially bragging to say "Lord, give us your wonderful Law, WE CAN KEEP IT!".
They had no clue what God demanded (in their ignorance) - ie. perfection.

The point of the law is that you cannot possibly keep God's law nor will you want to naturally, and that you'll fail and NEED A SAVIOUR. :thumbsup:
It points to Christ to keep it for us (He becomes our righteousness) -and cover us as the sacrifice for our wickedness. (becomes our blood sacrifice for atonement).

I always love to hear nonChristians attack us for being "self righteous"... if they'de stop & think about it, it's not Christians who are self righteous, they've admitted they need God - & they've submitted to accept HIS righteousness over them.
It's the nonChristian who has the self righteous problem; thinking they're good enough on their own and don't need a sacrifice for their sin - worse, thinking evil is OK.... (usually based on their own personal moral standard)

[eNathans]

I always love to hear nonChristians attack us for being "self righteous"... if they'de stop & think about it, it's not Christians who are self righteous


It's the nonChristian who has the self righteous problem; thinking they're good enough on their own and don't need a sacrifice for their sin - worse, thinking evil is OK.... (usually based on their own personal moral standard)

hmm

[Artificial Intelligence]

hmm
Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Jer 7:24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

i.e. they have a King, God himself, but they did not/do not follow him but do what they wanted to do by their own will. This is true for all, we all have a King, the King of Kings, but many do what seems right in their own eyes. For their hearts are evil, and what is good actually they call evil, and what is evil they call good.

[Nadiine]

Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Jer 7:24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

i.e. they have a King, God himself, but they did not/do not follow him but do what they wanted to do by their own will. This is true for all, we all have a King, the King of Kings, but many do what seems right in their own eyes. For their hearts are evil, and what is good actually they call evil, and what is evil they call good.
exactly:thumbsup:

To eN:
The Law is that there is no atonement for the soul without a sacrifice to pay the price for it. (life blood). That's why Christ came; to fulfill the law by becoming that sacrifice over sin to those who will repent.

You either have Yeshua -Christ (as your sacrifice), or you believe you do not need atonement from Yeshua.
When people come before God at judgment, they will not have a sacrifice covering over their sin.
THAT is self righteousness; thinking they don't need covering for their sin (or that their sin isn't a big deal to begin with)...

Christians claim the righteousness of Jesus Christ over them - atoning for their sin. They accept that they aren't righteous in themselves and that their sin is evil and must be paid for.
That is not self righteous.