Christians: The bible condones rape..?
Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29
28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
So its ok to disregard this rule, but the crap about gays? That stuff you have to stick to like glue.
@Christian.. Whatever your name is, I'm not going back to look:
I got that quote off a bible website. Feel free to google it.
@ a little lost-
How do those statements contradict the one I posted? The ones you mentioned add layers, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that if a woman is a unbetrothed virgin and is raped (where people can't hear her scream), she would still be forced to marry her attacker and his only punishment would be a fine of 50 shekels. And its not like I manipulated the sentence structure. That's how its written.
Also, what would make you want to insult my intelligence? People quote the OT all the time when it comes to stopping gay people from getting married, so why should they get to pick and choose which quotes are to be followed and which are to be scrapped?
- JasonLv 68 years agoFavorite Answer
All I have to say is that I am thankful that there is no evidence that points to the existence of the entity known as the god of the bible because, seriously if there was we would all be so screwed. The 'God' of the bible is a perfect example of a being that you wouldn't want to be all powerful.
- History101Lv 48 years ago
I will be absolutely honest with you. The verses you quoted were amazingly well pulled out.
In the EXACT same chapter, you find contradictions with your statement.
Deuteronomy 22:22 talks about putting both the man and woman to death for committing adultery.
Deuteronomy 22:23 - 24 :"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst."
Here we have explicit wording stating that the young woman "did not cry for help", very well implying that rape cases would result otherwise.
Deuteronomy 22: 25 - 27 states that that a man who "rapes" a betrothed woman be put to death.
There are actually many commentaries on this. It is important to understand that the Hebrew words used in Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28 do not necessarily indicate rape. In verse 25, the Hebrew word chazaq is used, and it essentially means “seize,” or “take hold of.”
Three verses in the same chapter that says the opposite.
If you want to insult Christians, use your brain and do it properly. Don't waste your time arguing for the sake of arguing.
EDIT: For one thing, it is clearly written "rape" in deuteronomy 22:25, which results in only the man being put to death. There is no mention of "rape" in the two verses you quoted. And as I stated above, the word "chazaq" is used, and it means "seize", or "take hold of". Rape is mentioned explicitly in one verse, while it isn't in the other. If you can imply that 28-29 implies rape when it never mentions it, why can't it be consensual in which "take hold of" is of the appropriate usage?
"People" quote the OT all the time. Certainly. You do however, realise that Christianity has many different branches, and not every branch subscribes to the Westboro Baptist Church's way of thinking. There are many different interpretations of the OT. I'm going to refrain from answering your other questions as this could take up more space. If you have more questions, simply create another question. All I can say is, it is extremely naive to think that all bible advocates are ignorant, homosexual hating people. Trust me, the atheism - religion debates go extremely in-depth.Source(s): Here I am speaking from a neutral standpoint, and even I can find proper commentaries simply by googling the verse.
- Anonymous4 years ago
Aren't there other reasons besides rape that the Israelites might have kept the children alive, such as servants? "Okay for those who wanted context I hope that you will read the whole preceeding and following chapters full of more murderous goodies" Now you're just changing the subject and hurling (unnamed) elephants. You have still yet to show where the passage condones rape. And since you won't specify what "murderous goodies" you think are in the bible or in which verses you think you've found them, there's no sense in doing a verse-by-verse replay trying to read your mind.
- GregoryLv 78 years ago
Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29
this verse is not about rape it is mutual consent to have sex
the verse you listed is corrupted
King James Version (KJV)
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;
29 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.
to lay hold on does not imply force it implies mutual agreement
this verse is about rape
King James Version (KJV)
25 But 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.
the rapist always died they never married their victim
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- JimLv 78 years ago
Looks like you're another one who has been taken in by the atheist's drivel. First of all, this is written to the God's chosen people, the nation of Israel, as to how they are to respond to certain sins. This is not a blanket prescription for all people. Secondly, the phrase "seizes her and lies with her" is a bad translation from the Hebrew text. This same Hebrew word is elsewhere translated as a consensual sexual act, not rape. This instance is two young people who were caught up in their passions. And the command to marry was intended be a sort of deterrent to premarital sex and preserve the concept of those engaged in a sexual union having become one flesh.
If you would have taken the time to read the previous 3 verses, (25-27), you would have found the bible's prescription for forcible rape. It says the man is to be put to death and nothing is to be done to the woman. Perhaps before you go disparaging the bible in the future, you might consider doing at least the minimal amount of research into the text instead of just have blind faith in it's detractors. After all, isn't that what you are essentially accusing bible believers of? Blind faith? I mean, really, all you would have had to do is to lift your eyes and read 3 previous verses. But then, I'll bet you've never even opened the book. It's much easier to just believe a cynic and parrot their nonsense than it is to think for yourself.
- Anonymous8 years ago
If the woman was provided for, she didn't have to marry him.
In those days, if you weren't a virgin, you wouldn't get married. If you didn't get married, you would on your own after your father died and no one would take care if you.
Remember, this was written in a patriarchal society in 1000 BC. Women weren't able to just go out and get jobs and take care of themselves.
Granted, this isn't the best situation for the victim, but is there any ideal situation when it involves rape?
- bmisinkiLv 58 years ago
I don't really think it's condoning it, but as one person pointed out, the gal's forced to marry her rapist. Conversely though, the rapist has to pay the father a fine, and he has to stick with this girl forever...as well as keeping her happy and providing for her. It could also be a law concerning if two people fornicate.
- 8 years ago
Not only does the Bible condones rape but the poor girl has to be married her entire life to her rapist. Also the father is supposed to treat his daughter like a common whore and accept the fifty shekels of silver from the rapist. God is love, my left testicle.
- NDMALv 78 years ago
Obviously not, not only does the man have to pay a fine, but he is required to support this woman for the rest of his life.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Oh no, it doesn't condone it at all! It orders strict punishment, by forcing her to marry him and making him pay her father a few coins to compensate for the lost value of his property.