Achilles said:
The word is certainly sometimes used (in respect to persons/cities) of taking hold on them in a forcible manner, absolutely. In this case it is used of the man because a man instigates the sexual act; women do not. It is not referring to rape: if it were, the word used merely three verses prior (chazaq) would have been used.
You can go to this link and read Gesenius' lexicon entry:
Hebrew Lexicon :: H8610 (KJV)
The reason that taphas is probably used is to signify that the girl is caught / detained / taken / captured in addition to rape. Regardless, we've already seen that taphas means the girl is being held against her will. Your link is the same as previously.
Right. Any one of these uses refers to a man instigating sexual relations.
There is not a single definition in that list that says that or even comes close. You are now doing what I warned you about - using your knowledge to prove yourself right rather than using your knowledge to earnestly discover what is right. When presented with all the clear, similar definitions of taphas, you insert a new definition for the term which does not exist.
The meaning depends upon the context of the situation. When a man and a woman have sexual intercourse the man is in control of the intercourse - that is why the word is used.
Ummm... no. Women can have control during sex. Furthermore, as we have seen, taphas refers to capturing / arresting when used with an individual.
Those are passages referring to enemy cities, not sexual intercourse. Again, the context of the passage depends upon the meaning of the word. You can't cite a passage about enemy cities and then say that the word has the same meaning when dealing with sexual intercourse.
It would be impossible for me to find a passage in which taphas is used for sexual intercourse (as you wish it to be), because the term has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with capturing / taking / arresting / seizing. That is why it is followed in the verse by the Hebrew "and has sex with her". She is captured / taken / arrested / detained / seized, and
then has nonconsensual sex because she has been captured. This is known as rape.
I would never claim that it did. I would only claim that it means that the man instigates the sexual intercourse which is what normally happens when a man and a woman have intercourse.
I do not think you know very much about sex. Taphas refers to the woman being captured, not to sex being instigated. As for instigation of sex, men and women both instigate sex because it is pleasing to both.
We've been through this before. The better translations are the NASB, ESV, NRSV, etc., and they do not use the term "rape." The translations that do are few and are doing a serious disservice to Holy Scripture.
I do not care whether you believe the NASB, ESV, NRSV, or any other bibles to be better. I have shown that bibles which use the term "rape" are highly regarded by people who have
credentials. You do not. Instead, you are an individual who will create new definitions for 2,500 year old Hebrew words if it suits your purpose.
And I stand by my original statement. Obviously if God is not going to punish those under twenty for some pretty serious crimes (such as worshipping the golden calf, etc.), then he must think they're not accountable. I will go ahead and stand by my statement that Scripture says that adulthood starts at twenty.
Scripture does not, and your previous post admitted such. That Yahweh forbade those who had been on the census (minus Joshua and Caleb in contradictory accounts) from entering a geographic territory is not an example of scripture saying "adulthood starts here."
The Midrash is not the Bible, it is a Jewish interpretation of it. And the Jews were often dead wrong in their interpretation, as the Pharisees and the Sadducees plainly show for all to see. The Bible says nowhere that the patriarchs married their wives "at the onset of puberty and before." I challenge you to show me one passage in Scripture where it says otherwise.
The Midrash is simply counting the numbers given by the bible. Rebecca was between three and fourteen years old when she was married to a much older Isaac. Your contention that Israel saw an earlier period in which men married women later than the onset of puberty is unfounded. I have given you strong, strong evidence to the contrary, and you have provided no evidence in favor.
Well, let's see. Here's a website with a bunch of translations:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...2&version=KJ21
For convenience' sake I will bold everything that uses rape (or a word which might give that connotation).
Let's see how it stacks up:
You may bold every time a translation uses the term "seize" as well. If a woman is "seized", and we know the term used for "seized" means seized / caught / kidnapped / taken / arrested, then we know that one who is seized for the purposes of sex is being held against her will. This is known as rape.
I count 14 translations that use rape or a word that might give that connotation (I even gave you the YLT even though "caught" could be construed differently). There are 30 translations which do not use rape or a term that might give that connotation.
It seems that most Biblical scholars are not on your side. Note that many of these translations are also modern (such as the NLT, the ESV, the NASB, the NRSV, and so on), though I suppose it depends on what you define as "modern."
To
seize a woman who is not your property and then have sex with her is rape. I am sorry that you fail to understand the term "seize."
There are far more Biblical translations in modern times than there were in ancient times. The printing press made this possible. I would think that this would be obvious.
Here is but a small list of older translations: Wycliffe Bible, Gutenberg Bible, Linacre Bible, 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus, Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Matthew-Tyndale Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Rheims Bible, Douway-Rheims, Bible, King James Bible, English Revised Version. Most of these had multiple editions. That's just a list of protestant English translations from about 1500 to 1900... four-hundred years.
I'm not incorrect. I don't think that 6th on the list (or 7th, if you count unit sales) in 2012 means that that translation is very popular:
The Most Popular and Fastest Growing Bible Translation Isn't What You Think It Is | Gleanings | ChristianityToday.com
It is when the bible you touted as being widely used is seventh on the list, and when another version you've touted is much farther down. And then you give us a link that shows how much the KJV is used privately, as if that proves the sixth most purchased bible is not widely used... yeesh.
This is how you really hurt your credibility for wanting the truth. When you're shown that you are absolutely wrong - that a bible you say is more popular than another is definitively not - and yet you will not just concede the point and move on... it makes me question responding to you any further. If you have such a need to be right that you will argue in favor of an obviously, demonstrably wrong point is not a good sign for discussing anything of greater difficulty.
Note that this article is from 2014 as well.
I'm not going to search the internet for sales rankings of bible translations in every year you desire. I showed that the HCSB was a better seller than the bibles you tout (while saying the HCSB is not widely used) as of two years ago. That is more than sufficient to show you are ridiculously wrong. You were just wrong until you tried to argue the point in the face of sales numbers... now you're ridiculously wrong.
As I've explained by now several times, the term is used in reference to a man taking a woman for intercourse. This is because a man instigates and performs the sexual act. I also notice you chose to use the word "captured" instead of something like "take," which is clearly what the word means in this context.
You do not get to invent new definitions for 2,500 year old words. And, given that you do not have any credentials in Hebrew whatsoever, you do not get to tell us that taphas means "take"
and consensual sex in contrast to what it always means in every other instance when used with individuals. It means to seize / capture / arrest / detain.
He in no way purchased the woman from the father but simply gave him a gift in return for making the woman a part of his family. She is leaving her father's family and becoming a part of someone else's. She is not considered the property of her husband, she is simply considered a part of his family.
The desiring husband is required to pay the father in exchange for the woman. Call it whatever you like to make it fit better with your cultural view - nevertheless a transaction occurs.
Right, a girl who is still a part of her father's family.
I'm not sure why you even wrote this blurb.
Considering I counted only 14 out of 44 that did so above I think that assessment needs to be called into serious question.
You fail to understand what the word seize means.
Anyone can look up the meanings of words in lexicons and compare versions. Therefore, anyone with access to these tools in fact is in a position to critique them.
A lexicon does not make you a scholar capable of critically examining Hebrew. That is as stupid as telling me that a Spanish dictionary makes you able to analyze Don Quixote. Good grief...
The CEV is a paraphrase. The translators simply didn't think the passage was referring to rape and translated it accordingly.
No... they are three uncredentialed individuals who produced a highly flawed bible reviewed by an international group they refused to reveal. And, like you would expect from three laypeople, we get a verse in which the verb "talk" is given in English where there is no verb in Hebrew that even remotely means "talk".
No translation is perfect and should be trusted to accurately translate every passage of the Bible. I'm was quoting the CEV simply to show that you can pick any translation you want to make a passage say what you want it to say - the way you do when you use the NIV specifically for this passage.
Yes, you showed that one translation, out of all translations throughout history, which is roundly dismissed as the work of an unskilled trio, can be tremendously wrong. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated to you that
many of the most highly esteemed translations support what I say. I have further shown you how the Hebrew works in the sentence. But, yes, you may believe that by finding a single, horribly flawed translation you have done something. You will be wrong, but you can believe that.
It's not talking about pre-pubescent girls as has already been covered. You have given absolutely no Biblical evidence to the contrary.
In addition, you may wish to tell the police it's impossible to catch a rapist without the victim. I think they do it all the time.
Every shred of evidence shows that girls were married at the onset of puberty in ancient Israel.
There is no evidence that what you say is correct. I have provided you with links, I have provided with what the bible says about Rebecca, and yet you insist that what you believe is true and what I document is false.
You have not given any evidence whatsoever to support what you think. No scholar that I am aware of, no historian that I am aware of, no archaeologist that I am aware of agrees with you. That you can believe something without any evidence, and in the face of all evidence,
really hurts that credibility even more.
The passage in Deuteronomy is simply another passage addressing the same topic. This is done many times with many topics in Deuteronomy, which is why it is referred to as the "second law."
You can assert that, but you normally would have to give some kind of evidence in order to do so. However, you seem to think that what you say becomes reality.
The truth is that Exodus gives the law for consensual sex of an unmarried girl. Deuteronomy gives the law for unconsensual sex of an unmarried girl. As opposed to your baseless claims, I have given pages of documentation for this.
The two laws are talking about the same thing: one is the expansion of the other. The woman can choose whether or not to marry the man in both situations. Obviously the father is not going to force his daughter to marry someone, so under normal conditions the woman herself could choose whether or not she wished to be married.
You cannot have an expansion in Exodus, which is the first of the laws given. The expansion, if it were true, would have to be in Deuteronomy, which it isn't. Good lord do you even read this stuff before you post it as reality??? Stop trying to be right and start studying.
The fact that slightly different words are used doesn't mean the passages are talking about different things. As I said, Deuteronomy is an expansion of the rest of the Torah. Saying that a man seduces a woman or that a man instigates a sexual act is really the same thing.
A law governing a man seducing a girl is different than a law governing a man who seizes / captures / takes / kidnaps / arrests a girl.
Would you just please, for a moment, care about what the bible says, as opposed to what you are determined for it to say so that you can win a debate and have your own beliefs supported. Because right now, I don't think you care about really studying the bible... I think you just want it to say what you want it to say.
My point is that there is no "death sentence romp" unless she is betrothed. We're talking about a woman who is not engaged in the passage under discussion, which means she doesn't face any sort of "death sentence romp" regardless, per Ex. 22:16-17.
She faces the death sentence in that when she does get married, if she can't prove her virginity then she will be beaten with rocks until she dies.
I am very disappointed in your post. I really thought I was going to be discussing this with someone who respects the text. I now feel that I am probably discussing this with someone who absolutely requires feeling right in their own mind.