Awesome explanation. I'm not even a religious guy; I respect the bible and it's lessons as excellent sources of ethics and morality, though, and I found it very hard to believe when other atheists claimed it supported the forceful marrying of a rapist. This made much more sense.
I don't think so. I have studied the words used for sexual intercourse. The parallel text of Leviticus uses another word for it, with can be attributed to rape. The words used in this text don't exclude rape either. This law or way of thinking also reflects itself in the sexual abuse of Tamar, when she insisted staying with her raper. These words don't mean much, except "sexual intercourse". In with circumstances this intercourse was committed was irrelevant, because it's not about that. Stop thinking like the moralists in the 21st century and look at the context! The society of that time was so paternalistic, that women were not allowed to work, and absolutely needed a husband to sustain her. So if a man in any circumstances had sex with a virgin, he had to marry her, because if he didn't, she would be sentenced to hunger to death or prostitute her self to survive, because no other man would take a wife that was not a virgin. It is a so-called "emergency law", just like the law that you have to give your wife a divorce letter when you don't want her anymore. This divorce letter made it possible for her to get married again. The same context. Obviously these laws do not reflect the transcending will of God, but the only odds were being married with your rapist, prostitute your self or die. This law responds to that reality. Also, Deut. 22 explains all the possible implications of the law "do not commit adultery". So how would this law apply in the case of rape of an unengaged virgin? There is no law other than this one that puts order for rape committed against an unengaged virgin. Stop using the word argument, because that will get you nowhere (It simply means "sex"). Go for the biblical, -historical and -cultural context, because in this case the words say nothing.
It is Your obligation to explain this to non believers including atheists instead of mocking them. This is wery difficult scriptures so people strugle with these scriptures including Christians...
There is nothing to explainabout this and many other scriptures they are all very immoral cruel and sickening.Any one who would take the time to try and justify any of this lacks moral character such as we see here .
@@Bugsy0333 You might need a history lesson or two. I've seen you on multiple videos on this topic so, you must be trying to disprove the bible in this one chapter. If you study different cultures and their history, you can learn a bit more. Personally, I have been to over 25 countries during my time in the military. It has helped me to see the way other cultures view religion. I will pray for you to find God and I hope you find the path to heaven. God bless!!!
@@worldpeace6374 Nothing intellectual about making excuses for something you know is immoral but to afraid to speak up for fear of spending an eternity in some place called Hell .Bye brainwashed !
I have studied the words used for sexual intercourse. The parallel text of Leviticus uses another word for it, with can be attributed to rape. The words used in this text don't exclude rape either. This law or way of thinking also reflects itself in the sexual abuse of Tamar, when she insisted staying with her raper. These words don't mean much, except "sexual intercourse". In with circumstances this intercourse was committed was irrelevant, because it's not about that. Stop thinking like the moralists in the 21st century and look at the context! The society of that time was so paternalistic, that women were not allowed to work, and absolutely needed a husband to sustain her. So if a man in any circumstances had sex with a virgin, he had to marry her, because if he didn't, she would be sentenced to hunger to death or prostitute her self to survive, because no other man would take a wife that was not a virgin. It is a so-called "emergency law", just like the law that you have to give your wife a divorce letter when you don't want her anymore. This divorce letter made it possible for her to get married again. The same context. Obviously these laws do not reflect the transcending will of God, but the only odds were being married with your rapist, prostitute your self or die. This law responds to that reality. Also, Deut. 22 explains all the possible implications of the law "do not commit adultery". So how would this law apply in the case of rape of an unengaged virgin? There is no law other than this one that puts order for rape committed against an unengaged virgin. Stop using the word argument, because that will get you nowhere (It simply means "sex"). Go for the biblical, -historical and -cultural context, because in this case the words say nothing. Also, stop throwing around with bibles and calling them trash. Even the most literal translations sometimes have errors in them or fail to actually transmit the original bible languages. Rather you should do your own translation. I'm not sure how well that would go, for a theologian that does not even address the context.
Can't you see that justifying these punishments as logical and godly is wrong. These laws are the same as the muslim's sharia law. If we do these things today, we are all in trouble. Can't you see that this is a powerful man's addition to the scriptures to justify their wrongdoing, one that man would eventually outlaw?
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Deuteronomy 22:29 KJV
The guy is only killed if he rapes a woman who is betrothed (engaged) King James Bible: biblehub.com/kjv/deuteronomy/22.htm "25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her." The Kings James Bible does not mention what you should do if a woman who is not betrothed and gets raped. Furthermore, if he rapes a woman who is not betrothed, then he is not killed. Instead, the rape victim has to marry her rapist. Many other versions of the bible suggest this very sentiment and the rest are just ambiguous enough to fabricate what you want it to say. 1. Berean Study Bible: biblehub.com/bsb/deuteronomy/22.htm "28If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he overpowers her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29the man who raped her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekelsc of silver, and she must become his wife because he has violated her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives." 2. Christian Standard Bible: biblehub.com/csb/deuteronomy/22.htm "28 If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her is to give the young woman’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife because he violated her.† He cannot divorce her as long as he lives." 3. Contemporary English Version: biblehub.com/cev/deuteronomy/22.htm "28 Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man forces her to have sex with him. If he is caught, 29they will be forced to get married. He must give her father 50 pieces of silver as a bride-price and+ can never divorce her." 4. Holman Christian Standard Bible: biblehub.com/hcsb/deuteronomy/22.htm "28If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her.f He cannot divorce her as long as he lives." 5. GOD'S WORD® Translation: biblehub.com/gwt/deuteronomy/22.htm "28This is what you must do when a man rapes a virgin who isn't engaged. When the crime is discovered, 29the man who had sexual intercourse with her must give the girl's father 11/4 pounds of silver, and she will become his wife. Since he raped her, he can never divorce her as long as he lives." 6. The Scriptures (ISR 1998): biblehub.com/isr/deuteronomy/22.htm "28“When a man finds a girl who is a maiden, who is not engaged, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she is to be his wife because he has humbled her. He is not allowed to put her away all his days." In the event that you don’t know what seizes means here is the definition from dictionary.com: to take hold of suddenly or forcibly; grasp: www.dictionary.com/browse/seized 7. International Standard Version: biblehub.com/isv/deuteronomy/22.htm "28“However, if a man meets a girl who isn’t engaged to be married, and he seizes her, rapes her, and is later found out, 29then the man who raped her must give 50 shekels of silver to the girl’s father. Furthermore, he must marry her. Because he had violated her, he is to not divorce her as long as he lives." 8. NET Bible: biblehub.com/net/deuteronomy/22.htm "28Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered. 29The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives." Curious, why do you think the kings james bible does not mention what we do with men who rape a woman who is not betrothed? definition of betrothed: engaged to be married. from ditionary.com: www.dictionary.com/browse/betrothed?s=t Lastly, if you think the kings james bible most accurately corresponds to your "gods" words, then riddle me this. Can thou sow thy vineyard with divers seeds without the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
@@misterauctor7353 Why do you think there are so many versions of the bible that say women need to marry the men that raped them? How many women do you think had to spend their lives with the one who raped them because of this passage? Why do you think that god doesn't magic the information into the translator's head so they don't get things like this wrong? Also, I can't find the bible condemning rape. Instead, it treats women as property and if a man rapes another man's woman then he is in trouble.
@@misterauctor7353 Sorry I don't know what you're saying. Are you saying "The Hebrew word" is a book and in Deut 22:28-29 it doesn't mention r*pe? Or maybe you're saying the Hebrew word Deut doesn't mean r*pe?
- First translation "has sex" = BOTH rape and consentual. - Second translation "rapes" = only rape, consentual not being a part of this. Result: You can point out, its not only about rape. You didnt however done anything to show, it doesnt include rape. And Btw. even the first translation sounded like rape. But again, it doesnt matter. If it is rape, you can still buy the girl for 50, no matter which translation is used (and as long as she is single)
Exactly. I have studied the words used for sexual intercourse. The parallel text of Leviticus uses another word for it, and this law or way of thinking also reflects itself in the sexual abuse of Tamar, when she insisted staying with her raper. These words don't mean much, except "sexual intercourse". In with circumstances this intercourse was committed was irrelevant, because it's not about that. Stop thinking like the 21st century moralists and look at the context! The society of that time was so paternalistic, that women were not allowed to work, and absolutely needed a husband to sustain her. So if a man in any circumstances had sex with a virgin, he had to marry her, because if he didn't, she would be sentenced to hunger to death or prostitute her self to survive. It is a so-called "emergency law", just like the law that you have to give your wife a divorce letter when you don't want her anymore. This divorce letter made it possible for her to get married again. The same context. Obviously these laws do not reflect the transcending will of God, but it was being married with your rapist, prostitute your self or die. This law responds to that reality. Stop using the word argument, because that will get you nowhere. Go for the biblical, -historical and -cultural context.
@@anthonywiebe-regen3129so the book of god instead of telling the people “women aren’t property” instead leans into the system of women being seen as property to ensure reparations for damaged goods?
Your explanation doesnt make sense you know. Because the two above verses (with the pledged to be maried), explain the difference between rape and consentual intercourse (as in "did scream" or didnt (which is weak by itself)). There is however no such differenciation in the first and last cases... That can only mean one thing: All actually married women having any kind of intercourse are to be killed, and any young non-maried women are to be sold for 50 silver... The writing is clear, there is only one exception and it doesnt cover these two groups at all. I mean, I understand... it is written so poorly, that its really hard to actually make sense of what it means. But... if this was an actual law, this would be the only possible interpretation. Non-married having sex (doesnt matter if consentualy) = sold....
Petr Novák in the Bible all sexual acts that do not take place in a relationship ordained by God, marriage, are considered acts of sin, rape. To take hold of a woman means that you convinced her through some form to have sex with you outside of the confines of marriage. That is rape. It doesn't matter how many flowers you bought her or how many poems you wrote her because at the end of the day you are pursuing her for nothing more then sexual gratification and if she sees it that way then acts such as buying flowers and writing poetry can be seen just as stalkerish as it is seem romantic.
Thats why Christians are so confused...There are about ten bibles one for each denomination. Melinated people wake up and learn your history before the Roman Catholics wrote the bible...Your history before Europeans came into existence just 6000 years ago and religion 2000 years ago. Learn about God Isis and her son Horus, who the story of Mary and Jesus came from. The kings and queens of Kemet and you will find your true belief and calling. Religion is merely 2000 years old, so look for your identity before this time...
Awesome explanation. I'm not even a religious guy; I respect the bible and it's lessons as excellent sources of ethics and morality, though, and I found it very hard to believe when other atheists claimed it supported the forceful marrying of a rapist. This made much more sense.
Well done praise the Lord
I don't think so. I have studied the words used for sexual intercourse. The parallel text of Leviticus uses another word for it, with can be attributed to rape. The words used in this text don't exclude rape either. This law or way of thinking also reflects itself in the sexual abuse of Tamar, when she insisted staying with her raper. These words don't mean much, except "sexual intercourse". In with circumstances this intercourse was committed was irrelevant, because it's not about that. Stop thinking like the moralists in the 21st century and look at the context! The society of that time was so paternalistic, that women were not allowed to work, and absolutely needed a husband to sustain her. So if a man in any circumstances had sex with a virgin, he had to marry her, because if he didn't, she would be sentenced to hunger to death or prostitute her self to survive, because no other man would take a wife that was not a virgin. It is a so-called "emergency law", just like the law that you have to give your wife a divorce letter when you don't want her anymore. This divorce letter made it possible for her to get married again. The same context. Obviously these laws do not reflect the transcending will of God, but the only odds were being married with your rapist, prostitute your self or die. This law responds to that reality. Also, Deut. 22 explains all the possible implications of the law "do not commit adultery". So how would this law apply in the case of rape of an unengaged virgin? There is no law other than this one that puts order for rape committed against an unengaged virgin. Stop using the word argument, because that will get you nowhere (It simply means "sex"). Go for the biblical, -historical and -cultural context, because in this case the words say nothing.
It is Your obligation to explain this to non believers including atheists instead of mocking them. This is wery difficult scriptures so people strugle with these scriptures including Christians...
There is nothing to explainabout this and many other scriptures they are all very immoral cruel and sickening.Any one who would take the time to try and justify any of this lacks moral character such as we see here .
@@Bugsy0333 You might need a history lesson or two. I've seen you on multiple videos on this topic so, you must be trying to disprove the bible in this one chapter. If you study different cultures and their history, you can learn a bit more. Personally, I have been to over 25 countries during my time in the military. It has helped me to see the way other cultures view religion. I will pray for you to find God and I hope you find the path to heaven. God bless!!!
@@worldpeace6374 More excuses for the imoral teachings within the Bible.
@@Bugsy0333 Not once was there an excuse in there but, I see you run from intellectual conversation. That's pretty common these days. Bye Felicia!!!
@@worldpeace6374 Nothing intellectual about making excuses for something you know is immoral but to afraid to speak up for fear of spending an eternity in some place called Hell .Bye brainwashed !
I have studied the words used for sexual intercourse. The parallel text of Leviticus uses another word for it, with can be attributed to rape. The words used in this text don't exclude rape either. This law or way of thinking also reflects itself in the sexual abuse of Tamar, when she insisted staying with her raper. These words don't mean much, except "sexual intercourse". In with circumstances this intercourse was committed was irrelevant, because it's not about that. Stop thinking like the moralists in the 21st century and look at the context! The society of that time was so paternalistic, that women were not allowed to work, and absolutely needed a husband to sustain her. So if a man in any circumstances had sex with a virgin, he had to marry her, because if he didn't, she would be sentenced to hunger to death or prostitute her self to survive, because no other man would take a wife that was not a virgin. It is a so-called "emergency law", just like the law that you have to give your wife a divorce letter when you don't want her anymore. This divorce letter made it possible for her to get married again. The same context. Obviously these laws do not reflect the transcending will of God, but the only odds were being married with your rapist, prostitute your self or die. This law responds to that reality. Also, Deut. 22 explains all the possible implications of the law "do not commit adultery". So how would this law apply in the case of rape of an unengaged virgin? There is no law other than this one that puts order for rape committed against an unengaged virgin. Stop using the word argument, because that will get you nowhere (It simply means "sex"). Go for the biblical, -historical and -cultural context, because in this case the words say nothing.
Also, stop throwing around with bibles and calling them trash. Even the most literal translations sometimes have errors in them or fail to actually transmit the original bible languages. Rather you should do your own translation. I'm not sure how well that would go, for a theologian that does not even address the context.
Why wouldn't it be commanded that the community puts no shame on the girl?
In Saudi Arabia the person who gets raped gets punished smh.
this isnt it chief
Can't you see that justifying these punishments as logical and godly is wrong. These laws are the same as the muslim's sharia law. If we do these things today, we are all in trouble. Can't you see that this is a powerful man's addition to the scriptures to justify their wrongdoing, one that man would eventually outlaw?
But why would she cry out in the first place if its consensual?
For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Deuteronomy 22:27 KJV
Betrothed engaged/married women gets raped
Damsel = women
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;
Deuteronomy 22:28 KJV
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:29 KJV
The guy is only killed if he rapes a woman who is betrothed (engaged)
King James Bible: biblehub.com/kjv/deuteronomy/22.htm
"25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."
The Kings James Bible does not mention what you should do if a woman who is not betrothed and gets raped. Furthermore, if he rapes a woman who is not betrothed, then he is not killed. Instead, the rape victim has to marry her rapist. Many other versions of the bible suggest this very sentiment and the rest are just ambiguous enough to fabricate what you want it to say.
1. Berean Study Bible: biblehub.com/bsb/deuteronomy/22.htm
"28If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he overpowers her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29the man who raped her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekelsc of silver, and she must become his wife because he has violated her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives."
2. Christian Standard Bible: biblehub.com/csb/deuteronomy/22.htm
"28 If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her is to give the young woman’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife because he violated her.† He cannot divorce her as long as he lives."
3. Contemporary English Version: biblehub.com/cev/deuteronomy/22.htm
"28 Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man forces her to have sex with him. If he is caught, 29they will be forced to get married. He must give her father 50 pieces of silver as a bride-price and+ can never divorce her."
4. Holman Christian Standard Bible: biblehub.com/hcsb/deuteronomy/22.htm
"28If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her.f He cannot divorce her as long as he lives."
5. GOD'S WORD® Translation: biblehub.com/gwt/deuteronomy/22.htm
"28This is what you must do when a man rapes a virgin who isn't engaged. When the crime is discovered, 29the man who had sexual intercourse with her must give the girl's father 11/4 pounds of silver, and she will become his wife. Since he raped her, he can never divorce her as long as he lives."
6. The Scriptures (ISR 1998): biblehub.com/isr/deuteronomy/22.htm
"28“When a man finds a girl who is a maiden, who is not engaged, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,
29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she is to be his wife because he has humbled her. He is not allowed to put her away all his days."
In the event that you don’t know what seizes means here is the definition from dictionary.com: to take hold of suddenly or forcibly; grasp: www.dictionary.com/browse/seized
7. International Standard Version: biblehub.com/isv/deuteronomy/22.htm
"28“However, if a man meets a girl who isn’t engaged to be married, and he seizes her, rapes her, and is later found out, 29then the man who raped her must give 50 shekels of silver to the girl’s father. Furthermore, he must marry her. Because he had violated her, he is to not divorce her as long as he lives."
8. NET Bible: biblehub.com/net/deuteronomy/22.htm
"28Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered. 29The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives."
Curious, why do you think the kings james bible does not mention what we do with men who rape a woman who is not betrothed?
definition of betrothed: engaged to be married.
from ditionary.com: www.dictionary.com/browse/betrothed?s=t
Lastly, if you think the kings james bible most accurately corresponds to your "gods" words, then riddle me this. Can thou sow thy vineyard with divers seeds without the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
ESV?
@@misterauctor7353 Why do you think there are so many versions of the bible that say women need to marry the men that raped them?
How many women do you think had to spend their lives with the one who raped them because of this passage?
Why do you think that god doesn't magic the information into the translator's head so they don't get things like this wrong?
Also, I can't find the bible condemning rape. Instead, it treats women as property and if a man rapes another man's woman then he is in trouble.
@@user-pq6si4ol4w The Hebrew word used Deut 22:28-29 doesn't mention r*pe.
@@misterauctor7353 Sorry I don't know what you're saying. Are you saying "The Hebrew word" is a book and in Deut 22:28-29 it doesn't mention r*pe? Or maybe you're saying the Hebrew word Deut doesn't mean r*pe?
@@user-pq6si4ol4w It doesn't mean r*pe.
this is laughable. cartoonish bs
- First translation "has sex" = BOTH rape and consentual.
- Second translation "rapes" = only rape, consentual not being a part of this.
Result: You can point out, its not only about rape. You didnt however done anything to show, it doesnt include rape. And Btw. even the first translation sounded like rape. But again, it doesnt matter. If it is rape, you can still buy the girl for 50, no matter which translation is used (and as long as she is single)
Exactly. I have studied the words used for sexual intercourse. The parallel text of Leviticus uses another word for it, and this law or way of thinking also reflects itself in the sexual abuse of Tamar, when she insisted staying with her raper. These words don't mean much, except "sexual intercourse". In with circumstances this intercourse was committed was irrelevant, because it's not about that. Stop thinking like the 21st century moralists and look at the context! The society of that time was so paternalistic, that women were not allowed to work, and absolutely needed a husband to sustain her. So if a man in any circumstances had sex with a virgin, he had to marry her, because if he didn't, she would be sentenced to hunger to death or prostitute her self to survive. It is a so-called "emergency law", just like the law that you have to give your wife a divorce letter when you don't want her anymore. This divorce letter made it possible for her to get married again. The same context. Obviously these laws do not reflect the transcending will of God, but it was being married with your rapist, prostitute your self or die. This law responds to that reality. Stop using the word argument, because that will get you nowhere. Go for the biblical, -historical and -cultural context.
@@anthonywiebe-regen3129so the book of god instead of telling the people “women aren’t property” instead leans into the system of women being seen as property to ensure reparations for damaged goods?
Your explanation doesnt make sense you know. Because the two above verses (with the pledged to be maried), explain the difference between rape and consentual intercourse (as in "did scream" or didnt (which is weak by itself)). There is however no such differenciation in the first and last cases... That can only mean one thing: All actually married women having any kind of intercourse are to be killed, and any young non-maried women are to be sold for 50 silver... The writing is clear, there is only one exception and it doesnt cover these two groups at all. I mean, I understand... it is written so poorly, that its really hard to actually make sense of what it means. But... if this was an actual law, this would be the only possible interpretation. Non-married having sex (doesnt matter if consentualy) = sold....
Petr Novák in the Bible all sexual acts that do not take place in a relationship ordained by God, marriage, are considered acts of sin, rape.
To take hold of a woman means that you convinced her through some form to have sex with you outside of the confines of marriage. That is rape. It doesn't matter how many flowers you bought her or how many poems you wrote her because at the end of the day you are pursuing her for nothing more then sexual gratification and if she sees it that way then acts such as buying flowers and writing poetry can be seen just as stalkerish as it is seem romantic.
Thats why Christians are so confused...There are about ten bibles one for each denomination. Melinated people wake up and learn your history before the Roman Catholics wrote the bible...Your history before Europeans came into existence just 6000 years ago and religion 2000 years ago. Learn about God Isis and her son Horus, who the story of Mary and Jesus came from. The kings and queens of Kemet and you will find your true belief and calling. Religion is merely 2000 years old, so look for your identity before this time...