(September 21, 2015 at 4:20 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: knew I had seen this somewhere:

That's what you get when you follow BS Asian religions.

(September 21, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: the responses seem quite one sided so i'll throw something in. there is a question of translation when it comes to a particular word in this verse. where it says 'rapes' it's worded differently in different versions. in the KJV for example, it says 'lay hold' which is not quite as harsh language. the NLT simply says 'has intercourse.' since there's disagreement among translations, we should investigate this further. the Hebrew word in question is taphas (תָּפַשׂ) and has a few meanings such as take, handle, hold, or wield. it can mean to seize, arrest, or catch; but it can also mean to grasp, wield, or use skillfully.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...8610&t=KJV
so the use of the word in and of itself doesn't tell us exactly what it means, so we have to look at the context of its use. so what does the context tell us? well, 3 verses earlier in verse 25 it definitely mentions rape. but it uses a different word, chazaq (חָזַק), which is a more clearly states it's force, or rape.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2388&t=KJV

so from the evidence, it seems that the verse is actually talking about consensual premarital sex rather than rape. and the word chazaq used in verse 28 really is talking about seduction rather than force. if they wanted to mean rape, it would have made sense to use the same word they used 3 verses earlier. now, you can debate the ethics of gunshot weddings all you want... but it's certainly a much less severe case than what is portrayed in the OP.

Why do we have to translate the Bible every time we read it?

(September 21, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(September 21, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Spooky Wrote: Because property doesn't get to bear witness for itself.

Idiotic.

Screw jewish law.

or that two people on different sides who have nothing but their words isn't enough... or two people who stay silent and aren't found can't be punished...

I can't believe somebody is actually defending this bullshit.

You can kiss 3/5 of my ass.

(September 21, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Spooky Wrote:

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

I take this to mean that god doesn't give a shit if they aren't discovered.

Cool, as long as I'm sneaky about it I can keep my silver.



Idiotic. 

No, I think RAKD has a good point, here. It's important to consider both word usage and context. Even though many translations of the Bible use the word "rape" for the later verses (28-29), others do not. Young's Literal uses "caught":

YLT Wrote:28When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, 29 then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days."

In the overall view of the chapter, though, it's clear that the whole point of the passage is to protect virginity, which had a literal, financial value to the men who owned those women. The "tokens of virginity" were an essential element of that. We still have a vestigial remnant of that practice in modern weddings, where the father of the bride "gives her away" to her new owner husband. As RAKD says, it's just a matter of considering the culture of the time. However, I'd say that the kind of culture which would produce such rules is not one that produces any moral codes a modern person should be obliged to consider God-inspired or worthy of respect.

In effect, because women are treated as property able to be damaged, whether it is rape or consensual is largely irrelevant, in terms of the passage, except where she is betrothed and is penetrated by a man not her husband-to-be, and they consider the question of whether or not she cried out in her own defense (the implication being that she must not have been raped, if not, ignoring that many rape victims cannot cry out because they are muffled, at knife-point, or simply terrified into submission), in which case both fornicators die. What mainly seems to matter in those verses is the value of the property that women represent. Fine for Bronze Age tribal (and Patriarchal) sheepherders, perhaps, but hardly the basis for a modern moral code.

(September 21, 2015 at 8:57 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: No, I think RAKD has a good point, here. It's important to consider both word usage and context. Even though many translations of the Bible use the word "rape" for the later verses (28-29), others do not. Young's Literal uses "caught":

Caught, discovered, observed, seen, noted, discerned, etc...

Doesn't honestly matter to me what word is used, I don't see how it would change the meaning. The great misogynist in the sky doesn't care unless there's a third party. Again going back to the word of a man against that of property. I take issue with whatever translation you care use.

Defense of this verse and whatever moral or parabolic teachings it's trying to impart is simply idiotic, like most of the bible.

(September 21, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Spooky Wrote:

(September 21, 2015 at 8:57 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: No, I think RAKD has a good point, here. It's important to consider both word usage and context. Even though many translations of the Bible use the word "rape" for the later verses (28-29), others do not. Young's Literal uses "caught":

Caught, discovered, observed, seen, noted, discerned, etc...

Doesn't honestly matter to me what word is used, I don't see how it would change the meaning.  The great misogynist in the sky doesn't care unless there's a third party.  Again going back to the word of a man against that of property.  I take issue with whatever translation you care use.

Defense of this verse and whatever moral or parabolic teachings it's trying to impart is simply idiotic, like most of the bible.

Agreed. That's why I said it's not a basis for a modern moral code. Modern moral codes have the bizarre notion that women are people.

(September 21, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(September 21, 2015 at 4:03 am)Milleby Wrote: Hey guys, I was pressing a guy on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in a discussion elsewhere

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


I asked him if society would be more moral if people obeyed this law, and he came back with this:




I just wanted some help developing my thoughts in regard to this apologetic. What do you guys make of this? How might you respond to it?

I do have a few ideas on how I might reply, the main problem with the passage is that it doesn't give the rape victim any say in what happens, but I just thought I'd post this here and see if you guys thought of anything that didn't occur to me; I have been somewhat sleep deprived lately so it wouldn't surprise me.

 With the advice you were given and the response from the guy you challenged, you're between a rock and a hard place. Next time maybe you'll consider staying quite before challenge Christians who have studied the Bible.

GC

You're still around hm? You see thats good. I was sincerely worried that *all* the crazies had fled this place. You seem alittle toned down though which is worrying.
Honestly? You little loonies are the best entertainment to be had. We honestly need more. Now go on. Say something batshit insane.
For old times sake. It'll make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

EDIT: One sec, I know what will get you started. Have some kudos from me for just how absolutely mental your interpretation of that exchange was. On me.
Positive association might encourage you.

(September 21, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: the responses seem quite one sided so i'll throw something in. there is a question of translation when it comes to a particular word in this verse. where it says 'rapes' it's worded differently in different versions. in the KJV for example, it says 'lay hold' which is not quite as harsh language. the NLT simply says 'has intercourse.' since there's disagreement among translations, we should investigate this further. the Hebrew word in question is taphas (תָּפַשׂ) and has a few meanings such as take, handle, hold, or wield. it can mean to seize, arrest, or catch; but it can also mean to grasp, wield, or use skillfully.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...8610&t=KJV
so the use of the word in and of itself doesn't tell us exactly what it means, so we have to look at the context of its use. so what does the context tell us? well, 3 verses earlier in verse 25 it definitely mentions rape. but it uses a different word, chazaq (חָזַק), which is a more clearly states it's force, or rape.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2388&t=KJV

so from the evidence, it seems that the verse is actually talking about consensual premarital sex rather than rape. and the word chazaq used in verse 28 really is talking about seduction rather than force. if they wanted to mean rape, it would have made sense to use the same word they used 3 verses earlier. now, you can debate the ethics of gunshot weddings all you want... but it's certainly a much less severe case than what is portrayed in the OP.

Well, sure, maybe the passage originally referred to consensual sex, but to tell you the truth when one quotes it in an argument with a Christian I think he is still more than justified in interpreting it to mean rape. See, you have to consider the passage in light of their beliefs. If what they believe is true, then it logically follows that YHWH didn't care to step in and correct the author when they used the word "rape." So, basically (assuming the Christian god exists), we can infer one of two things from this. Either A) Rape was the correct translation or B) YHWH doesn't care if his message to humanity is misinterpreted. Either way this causes problems for the Christian in question.

Anyways, this is why I'm never convinced by apologists who argue that you need to look at older versions of the Bible that more accurately communicate the ideas contained within.

And to tell you the truth, as an atheist who thinks YHWH is just a fairy tale character, I will admit that you make a good point that there is some controversy over the passage and it may not mean rape, but for the purposes of using it as ammunition against Christian believers, one would be completely justified in interpreting it more harshly.

A culture that considers a woman worthless unless she is a virgin, and that considers a woman property is not a society that can be considered 'good' by any true measure of the word.

(September 21, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Why do we have to translate the Bible every time we read it?

because it wasn't written in English? I mean really...