Peg writes:
You are claiming those verses to be commands to rape girls.
The word "rape" is originally derived from the Latin word'rapio' meaning 'to abduct or seize by force' (and from also where we get the words 'raptor', rapture', 'rapacious' and 'rapine') and later 14th century Anglo-French word, to 'seize, carry off by force, abduct'. It was not applied in a sexual context until the late 15th century after most of the early English translations of the Bible had already been written and therefore it is not a word that you will find in the KJV which began its creation in 1604. However, many of today's modern English versions such as the NIV use it occasionally to describe the events that transpired in the passages I had given earlier.
Most literal translations try to equate a near 1 to 1, English word for Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic or Latin (in later translations) word when possible. However, a translator is not always going to replace a whole sentence describing the carrying away of virgin women prisoners to there camps to be 'betrothed' and have sexual relations with them (i.e. take away there virginity/rape) with just the single word 'rape'.
Besides it has only been within the past 100 years or so that modern society has placed an extremely negative connotation and made the topic of the sexual raping of women (that is having sex with them without there consent) a politically and socially sensitive subject with clear condemnation for the act. Not to say that this did not occur before in some parts of our diverse cultures before this, but it was not legislated against and was condoned (allowed) in many cultures.
Here is the definition of rape in Merriam-Webster's:
Merriam-Webster writes:
1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent compare sexual assault, statutory rape
Therefore based on the etymology and current usage of the word 'rape' I described above, both definitions 1 and 2 apply in these passages:
Numbers 31 writes:
And Jehovah speaketh unto Moses, saying,
Moses is speaking on the behalf of the god of the Hebrews. Therefore this is a COMMANDMENT from GOD.
Numbers 31 cont. writes:
Execute the vengeance of the sons of Israel against the Midianites -- afterwards thou art gathered unto thy people.'... And they war against Midian, as Jehovah hath commanded Moses, and slay every male;
God commands ethnocide as a form of retribution and revenge.
Numbers 31 cont. writes:
And the sons of Israel take captive the women of Midian, and their infants; and all their cattle, and all their substance, and all their wealth they have plundered...
Israelites disobey the Hebrew god and take prisioners (including baby males).
Numbers 31 cont. writes:
And Moses saith unto them, `Have ye kept alive every female?
Moses gets angry.
Numbers 31 cont. writes:
`And now, slay ye every male among the infants, yea, every woman known of man by the lying of a male ye have slain;
God/Moses orders infanticide (killing innocent babies and children just because they are male)
Numbers 31 cont. writes:
and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves...
They only keep the virgin women and girls (young and old).
Numbers 31 cont. writes:
and of human beings -- of the women who have not known the lying of a male -- all the persons [are] two and thirty thousand.
ditto. Why virgins? Use your imagination. What did the Israelite soldiers do once they brought these virgins back to their camps?
Do you still disagree that the definition of rape does not apply in these circumstances? Whether the culture of the time condoned such actions at the time is really irrelevant since God commanded such actions to occur. Or are you going to continue to convince yourself that he did not command these acts to occur?
It is also interesting to note that the Jewish law, the Mishnah (literally means ‘copy’ or ‘repetition’ and refers to the oral laws and practices complementing the Torah and part of the Talmud ‘Oral Torah’), states the following about the practice of marriage in the OT:
Rabbi Joseph bar Hiyyah c. 333 writes:
Come and take note:
A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4]. [Sanhedrin 7/55B]
My point here is that the Mosaic Law is no more equitable or free than any of the other rules and regulations of antiquity. The Hebrew Talmud and Torah are no better or worse than the rest. All the forms of regulating human behavior at this time; Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Persian, Babylonian, Chinese, etc form the basis from which we have evolved our present day forms of moral standards. It is a form of revisionist history to say otherwise. Go read the Code of Hammurabi and other legal codes of that day and then tell me the Torah is so much better.
Peg writes:
I'm showing that the mosiac laws outlawed all such wrong conduct. Rape was against the mosiac law, so how is it you claim that it commands rape???
Where? You showed that the Mosaic law forbade prostitution (selling your body for money and sustenance) not rape and sex slavery. Those are not the same things. Where does the Mosaic law state that slaves (much less free women) have a choice in whether or not they can choose to have sex with there masters?
Rape was against the mosiac law, so how is it you claim that it commands rape???
Show me where it says this.
Rape and prostitution is not the same thing. Prostitution is consensual (though the two parties enter into it for different reasons), rape is not.
Peg writes:
Me writes:
So therefore did not God allow that a man could sell his daughter as a slave to another man in Exodus 21? And could that man do whatever he wish with that girl i.e. force sex (rape)? Have sex, etc? And did she have the right to leave her master? IS THAT NOT SEX SLAVERY? YES OR NO?
NO> you are not reading it correctly and you are not considering the culture of the people. It was perfectly normal to sell yourself or a family member into slavery in those days. Many did it as a way to pay debts and look after their families.
What does considering the culture have to do with it (BTW the amount of material I have provided in this debate debunks your outlandish claim that I do not consider the cultural framework of Hebrew society at that period of time)? It is either right or wrong in context of today’s moral standards. The problem I have is not the historicity of the account but your condoning and justifying of these practices on the part of your god.
Peg writes:
In the case of a girl being sold, the buyer could not do anything to her...Isrealites were bound by the mosiac law which forbid immoral sex.
BS, where does it say in the Bible that slave masters could not have sex with their slaves?
So to read this verse and say that the man could 'do what ever he wanted including rape' is completely inaccurate.
Rape in this situation would be inevitable as the women had no choice in the matter, unless you disagree with the modern definition of the word ‘rape’.
Peg writes:
If the man liked the girl, he could make her his wife.
Do you really think that these young girls (girls in this time period and even now in some parts of the world could be married at very young ages sometimes as young as 11 and 12 once they would start menstruating) were sold off for non-sexual reasons? Are you this nave?
Also explain the following passage and tell me how this does not constitute God condoning rape? God even commands that the rapist marry the victim. Disgusting. There are no words to describe this. And if you justify it you are complicit in allowing rape to occur:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Peg writes:
. That is not rape, it does not constitute rape and it was perfectly acceptable in such societies.
Who cares whether it was acceptable back then. The problem isn’t about them doing it back then (it’s in the past and we can’t do anything to change past events), it is about YOU justifying the practice and saying it is acceptable. Evidently it is acceptable by you (and your god) to sell your children into slavery for sexual and non-sexual reasons along with having rape victims marry there rapists, infanticide, ethnocide and other atrocities commanded and condoned by god. It is YOU (and people with similar mindsets) that I have a problem with, not the non-existent Hebrew deity of the OT.
Peg writes:
Women accepted it and even welcomed it.
They accepted it because they had no choice! They grew up in that culture and had no idea what the alternative was. Does that make it right? Does it make it right for parents to physically abuse there children because they ‘don’t know any better’?
Logic and rationality are lost on you Peg.
I have visited over 20 countries (including several countries of the Middle East), traveled to Central America to work with Christian medical missionaries in the rural remote Merendone mountain region near San Pedro Sula in Honduras and handing out medical supplies and other basic sustenance of living to the inprovished near Mazatln, Mexico, as well as minoring in history and humanities (completed college-level Greek/Roman Humanities, Old Testament Bible, Cultural Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and World Religion courses). Don’t lecture me on what other cultures do and do not believe. I have been there and seen it first hand.
Peg writes:
Its still done today in middle eastern cultures. Indian & Chinese cultures still arrange marriages for their daughters. It doesnt constitute rape.
And that makes it right? Most modern societies have agreed upon universal rights for all human beings. Look up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (drafted and adopted by 48 countries, 8 countries of the Soviet Blok abstained from voting, of the United Nations in 1948) along with the freedoms and rights outlined in the Unites States Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Right.
Peg writes:
so you ignored the part that read...
"and if she agrees" and "you must not deal tyrannically with her" and "you must allow her to leave freely" and "you must not sell her to a stranger"
I guess you are using the New World Translation of the JW and where does the Bible say and if she agrees when referring to slave women, please give exact references?
Here is the litteral Hebrew-English translation of Deuteronomy 21:13-14:
Litteral Hebrew to English translation writes:
andyou-see inthecaptive woman-of lovely-of shape andyou-are-attached inher andyou-take toyou towoman andyou-cbringher to midst-of household-ofyou andshe-mshave head-ofher andshe-does nails-ofher andshe-ctakes-off garment-of captivity-ofher fromonher andshe-dwells inhouse-ofyou andshe-laments father-ofher and mother-ofher month-of days andafter so you-shall-come toher andyou-possessher andshe-becomes toyou towoman andhe-becomes if not you-delight inher andyou-mdismissher tosoul-ofher andto-sell not you-shall-sellher inthesilver not you-shall-smake-a-chattel inher inasmuch-as which you-mhumiliatedher
Deuteronomy 21:13-14 writes:
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Again where does it say the woman has any choice in the matter? From the passages I have read it is all up to the man not the woman as was part of the middle eastern custom (and still is in many parts of the ME and other places in the world where sexual equality has yet to become a reality).
Peg writes:
so now you are the judge of all ancient cultures, and modern cultures, who believe arranged marriages are a good thing.
these types of marriages seemed to have worked quite well for billions of people for a very long time.
No, I am an advocate of equal rights for all human beings and therefore disagree with the concept of arranged marriages as being equitable to either party.
So you are ok with arranged marriages where the girls/woman (and sometimes the young boys) had no say in who they married? Do you not believe in universal human rights?
Peg writes:
sorry, my mistake, i was thinking of a mosaic law that demanded a man who took a girls virginity must marry her, however ,this law was not with regard to rape.
But the one I described specifically states this situation as rape:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes:
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; 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.
Peg writes:
Deuteronomy 22:25 "If, however, it is in the field that the man found the girl who was engaged, and the man grabbed hold of her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her must also die by himself, 26 and to the girl you must do nothing. The girl has no sin deserving of death, because just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him, even a soul, so it is with this case
This has more to do with Gods wrath at the man perpetuating an act against a women who was engaged to marry than it had to do with his anger at the sexual act itself. In other words, it was the breaking of the marriage bond itself which was being condemned. Read the verse in context with the one previous in which if the woman does not scream out when being raped in the city she is to be punished to death as well.
Peg writes:
Do you know what the hebrew word for 'rape' is and have you checked to see if that word is used in the passages about the soldiers taking the virgins to their home???
There is no one-for-one translation of the English word ‘rape’ to a notional Hebrew word meaning ‘rape’ (hence why you will not find the word ‘rape’ in the KJV of the Bible) as the act of rape was not condemned but rather condoned depending on the circumstance (with the exception of the situation described above about breaking the promise of engagement). Read my earlier etymological discussion of the word and it should make sense.
The closest word for this act is the Hebrew word: ushkb (litteral) or Shakab (phonetically) meaning ‘to lie (of sexual relations)’, ‘copulation’, etc. There are no negative connotations with this word though, as there are with the English word ‘rape’.
However, we can infer what was allowed through the spirit of the Mosaic law and the acceptable customs of that period.
Women at that time (and in some parts of the world still to this day) were considered not much more than chattel (property) and at most second-class citizens. That is why the majority of these laws of antiquity are written to free males (and most often to property holding males). This why these laws rarely took into account the feelings and desires of those of the female sex and men were held to a higher standard than women.
However, this does not excuse this culture (or any culture) from what is accepted by modern society as equitable and fair treatment. We cannot change the past but we can change the future as long we recognize the wrongs that have been previously committed and correct our present and future behavior.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
™ Version 4.2
