• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

kurious_kathy explain this.

[Hi. First post from a lurker here.]

The passage in Deuteronomy describes a woman who has been raped, whereas Exodus describes a situation where the woman is seduced. The former is unwilling; the latter implies a certain willingness on the part of the woman. They are not the same. Hence a rape victim still doesn't have a choice not to marry her rapist.
 
[Hi. First post from a lurker here.]

The passage in Deuteronomy describes a woman who has been raped, whereas Exodus describes a situation where the woman is seduced. The former is unwilling; the latter implies a certain willingness on the part of the woman. They are not the same. Hence a rape victim still doesn't have a choice not to marry her rapist.


Welcome! :)

Not that I don't want to wholeheartedly agree, but is there a cite I can read on that point?

Again, hearty WELCOME! :)
 
Please keep in mind that I'm not a theologian or Biblical scholar by any means. This is information that is readily available on the Web. Deuteronomy 23:18:



-Bri
I see that .. ( you are not a theologian ) So I am not surprised you came up with Deut. 23:18 instead of 23:17 ..

You really shouldn't jump on the first thing you find that seems to support your position, without digging a little deeper..

I will admit I was sort of making a wild a$$ed guess myself, but the

" it's O.K. to have all the unmarried women you want ",

seemed to be a " God's Chosen People " kind of policy..

All this " evil of sex outside of marriage " thing, is so New Testament ...

Which translation provided the exact words you offered? The YLT seems the closest I could find; but even YLT apparently doesn't mean what you are suggesting it does..

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-17.htm

here shall be no prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel. (WEB)

There shall be no prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel. (ASV)

No daughter of Israel is to let herself be used as a loose woman for a strange god, and no son of Israel is to give himself to a man. (BBE)

There shall be no prostitute amongst the daughters of Israel, nor any Sodomite amongst the sons of Israel. (DBY)

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. (KJV)

There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. (WBS)

There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel. (JPS)

There is not a whore among the daughters of Israel, nor is there a whoremonger among the sons of Israel; (YLT)

It appears that your version comes closest to ' Young's Literal Translation ', but if you dig a little deeper, you will find that this verse is talking about Canaanite Temple prostitutes...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy 23:17;&version=46;

Deuteronomy 23:17 (Contemporary English Version)

Temple Prostitutes
Moses said:
17People of Israel, don't any of you ever be temple prostitutes. [a]

Footnotes:

1. Deuteronomy 23:17 temple prostitutes: Some Canaanites worshiped by going to their temples and having sex with prostitutes that represented their gods.

Yep'. All right there on the WEB..

Still waiting for a Biblical reference that shows promiscuity by Israelite men ( other than an adultrous situation ) was frowned upon..
 
These are the things that added pain to my life. Sex outside of marriage causes many heartaches in peoples lives. Wouldn't you agree?

So now God must forgive you for break rules he put in place, simply becuase he doesn't like them? Rules that are, when you look at it, foolish? No sex before marrage? Why? I have plenty of sex, and I am not married. I do not feel shameful, it does not hurt me (or her). I can boldly shout from the top of the nearest tree "I HAVE SEX AND I'M NOT MARRIED", and guesswhat? No-one but backwards people similar to yourself will care. Welcome to the real world.
 
Sorry I don't agree with your take on it. But I will agree that sex inside of marriage is a beautiful thing. But God intended it to be for marriage not fornication. I just see it as fornication outside of marriage now. This one of the views that was changed in my conversion to a life of faith.
It is also a strong conviction I have personally. But I do realize many believe what's right for me is not right for them. In other words they agree to disagree with their own personal perception of it. But again I go to God's word and see something like this... Life by the Spirit
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions,and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I myself want to choose a life that shows fruit of the spirit rather than being someone who chooses to be more carnally minded.


Once again, this is all basically saying we shouldn't have sex before we are married because God says so! Why should we listen to him? If these rules were obviously important, like "Thou shalt not put thy head in yonder lava", that I can understand. But what you are saying is just stupid, I'm sorry. "Thou shalt not" have sex before you are married. Why not?
 
fowlsound said:
Kathy, when you contradict yourself, do you consider it stupid for us to call you on it and ask for an explanation? Because that's what avhienda did. I'll repost it:




Now. Answer her, or admit you are a hypocrite.

Hey, hon, you can leave KK alone about my post. I cut off any recourse she had to answer my question by telling her she couldn't preach at me.

She's just doing what I asked her to, really...

:mrocks
 
I find it rather ironic and amusing that we're arguing the finer points of passages from a book of mythology. :)
I'm sure you have noticed it's a ' Devils Advocate ' type of argument.. A completely acceptable form of debate...

It's also an extension of the " Christians who haven't read the Bible " discussion...

' Amusing ' sounds a bit formal.. I like ' fun '...

As far as ' ironic '; it's not part of the Christian vocabulary.. They want you to believe the God of the OT had a change of heart somewhere..
It would never occur to them that it was the story tellers ( the authors of this mythology ) , who had a change of heart...

You know, it was no longer cool to disembowel ( non Israelite ) women and children and put severed heads upon pikes..
But this was not an evil God; no. It was a just and loving God, dealing with a people in the way they deserved, within the socio-cultural context of the bronze age.
Things are so much different now.
 
Hey, hon, you can leave KK alone about my post. I cut off any recourse she had to answer my question by telling her she couldn't preach at me.

She's just doing what I asked her to, really...

:mrocks



Fair enough, she's apparently not going to acknowledge her hypocritical posts anyway.
 
Welcome! :)

Not that I don't want to wholeheartedly agree, but is there a cite I can read on that point?

Again, hearty WELCOME! :)

Thanks. This forum has been an eye-opening experience, but I'm usually too scared to post. :boxedin: I still don't consider myself well-informed enough to enter a complex debate though I do possess a healthy dose of scepticism.

Anyhow, I was responding to Bri's assertion that the two passages were similar. I don't see how rape and seduction could possibly be similar, except in the case of statutory rape. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt there were legal (or even divine) clauses for statutory rape in biblical times.
 
Oh, but wait! Didn't it say in the previous passage that he must marry her? Obviously, that's not exactly an accurate interpretation of what the passage means. Upon further inspection, it simply means that he has no choice in the matter. The passage in question in Deuteronomy is very similar, except that a rape has taken place, and in a similar manner the point is that the rapist doesn't have a choice in the matter of whether or not to marry her (and in that case, whether or not to divorce her once they are married).
-Bri

This would be a great argument IF the verse following Deuteronomy 22:28 was, in fact, a refutation laying out a price for recompense, etc if she didn't want to marry him.

In this case, however, the follow up is:

" 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 the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

30 A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not dishonor his father's bed."

And Deuteronomy 22 ends there, and 23 goes off into people with crushed testicles not being allowed in the assembly of the Lord, etc.

So unlike your passage from Exodus, there isn't a follow-up stating that "Oh, well, unless you don't want to." They may well be similiar, but the passage in Deuteronomy does NOT have an escape clause tacked onto it. You may claim that it is similiar to Exodus, and indeed, superficially it appears to be, but it lacks a key bit that would make it, if not acceptable, at least...less godawful.
 
Sorry for the tone, you caught me mid titanium spark.

So, if I read this correctly instead of marriage the bible orders payment for services rendered? Not much of an improvement. We've gone from forcing the victim to marry to basically prostitution.

And no, I don't see this as a legal issue for damages. There is still no provision for actual penalty for the crime of rape. In a case where civil damages are awarded, it is seperate (and usually after) criminal punishment is decided.

I'm just musing here, thinking aloud.

Was there a lot of coin money floating around in that place and time? Or was barter the usual method of exchange? I mean to say, maybe money, being made of actual gold or silver or copper, etc. was hard to come by, and so that much more precious? Gold is gold: it should be accepted everywhere (like a heavy, cumbersome Visa). Maybe Moshe the Trader isn't accepting goats this season, and you can only get the goods you need with coin.

Asking a man to give up real money to pay for a crime might be, in a society like that, worse than whipping him. (A nomadic people probably wouldn't have a jail system, would they?) But money's generally so prevalent now that, except for the poor, a fine today seems like a slap on the wrist.

Now, I really hate when I can't remember details, but I recently read a novel by an author who writes Ancient Irish mysteries. His lead character is a woman, a judge, and wields a fair amount of power. These novels are supposedly based on research, and in the society of the novel, most crime is punished by heavy fines, (like a Danegeld or Wergeld system) which is seen as no real fun at all, because money is hard to come by. If you can't pay, you have to work it off. (Good novel, by the way; I'll see if I can find the title and author later.)

Also, as to marriage being akin to prostitution, many years ago (80's) I was watching one of those hideous talk-shows, and the panel were prostitutes. A woman in the audience asked why they just didn't do the moral, normal thing and get married?

And one of the hookers said, "Does your husband pay the mortgage, buy the groceries, give you money for clothes and other things?"

"Yes, he does," the woman said, a little smugly.

"And do you sleep with him, pretty much whenever he wants?"

"Well....yes."

"Then honey, the only difference between you and me is that you do that with one man, and I do it with many."

I thought she had a point.
 
I don't see how rape and seduction could possibly be similar, except in the case of statutory rape.

I'm also reluctant to jump in, not knowing a lot about the subject. I just wanted to mention though, for whatever it's worth, that my translation of the Temple Scroll (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) replaces the part about a rape victim marrying her rapist with the verse from Exodus, "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed ..." (The rest of the section on rape is from Deutronomy.) I'm not exactly sure what this means, except that Bri's idea of the passages being similar is obviously a very old one.
 
"Then honey, the only difference between you and me is that you do that with one man, and I do it with many."

I thought she had a point.
To continue with the derail..

That's just another spin on the " Would you do it for a $mil, would you do it for $5 .. " story..


( Imagine cute kitty here .. )
 
To continue with the derail..

That's just another spin on the " Would you do it for a $mil, would you do it for $5 .. " story..


( Imagine cute kitty here .. )

Oh crap, what did I do to earn a kitty?
I'm so bummed now.
 
This would be a great argument IF the verse following Deuteronomy 22:28 was, in fact, a refutation laying out a price for recompense, etc if she didn't want to marry him.

You (and another poster as well) missed the point. I was simply pointing out that the translation of both passages is very similar and in both cases seems to indicate that the man must marry the woman (from which one could perhaps infer that nobody involved has a choice in the matter). However, upon further inspection, one of them clearly indicates that in fact the father does have a choice in the matter. Therefore, since similar wording is used in both cases (indeed in a Hebrew version that I have, the translations of both passages are nearly exactly the same where it talks about his obligation to marry her) it is more likely that both passages simply indicate that the man doesn't have a choice in the matter.

-Bri
 

Back
Top Bottom