Deuteronomy 22:28-29

[Hungry Hungry Hippo]

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.