Help needed re the Levitical Law

[traveller]

I will add that rape today is an act of violence against women. It was not likely to be an act of violence as much as an act of uncontrolled passion bach in the day.

What do you base this on?

Let me make this as clear as I can. Society is completely different now. Back in the days of the prophets, women were more reserved and compliant. They were not taking men's jobs or being "power chicks". They were kept in a state that would not be tolerated today.

Today, women are demanding, ambitious, headstrong and opinionated. They compete very well in the work place and they are not afraid to talk back or even disrespect a man in the work place or in public. In addition, sex is tossed at us from every media. Women spend more time wanting to dress and look "Sexy" then they do to look "GODly".

This social dynamic has created a class of men who resent women to the point of hatred that manifests intself in the desire to debase women in the most humiliating way possible. Rape works better than murder because it lingers. Rape is the usuall choice for the release of this rage.

Now, yes it is possible that the scripture is speaking of a man coercing a woman (as opposed to rape) But I still feel that it is more likely that this is more a case of forced relations.

It is not something I will beat around with y'all. I have made my understanding known and tried to give reason. Whatever we believe on this subject is not going to change anything.

You will recall that there is a story of a young man who rapes one of the daughters of Joseph. ( her name starts with a T as I recall) He would have married her but the brothers went in and killed all of the men of the town on the third day after they were cercumsized.

I don't go along with this at all, brother. Raping and pillaging has been with us as long as there have been men (humankind) that wanted more land, more money, more stuff. For thousands of years women have been raped whether it was for spoils of war or whatever. It had nothing to do with their trying to usurp mans' place in the world, nor how they dressed, nor even how they looked. It was because they were disadvantaged in strength and protection. They were/and have been raped for a sense of dominance, or control by the man. And, there are the instances of flat out pure evil done simply to torment, to hurt, to inflict pain and shame. Some of these woman don't make it out alive.

I understand there are times when it's done out of sexual passion and desire, lack of self control. But that is no more defensible than the other reasons, in my book.

I understand that you are not condoning it kross. And, I understand what you're saying about today's society and how lax we've become with modesty and how we interact with one another. But, to suggest that the woman carries part of the blame is, in my opinion, part of the problem. Men have just as much responsibility to control their actions as do the women. But, to carry that further, in my opinion - men actually have more responsibility. They are to be the spiritual head of the family, yet they are abandoning their faith, leaving their households, and allowing their children to grow up fatherless. They should be there, teaching, instructing, leading the family in the ways of the Lord, protecting them, nourishing them. So yes, kross, I agree that society does have an impact on the way women are treated - but it's not always the womans fault.

Again - this is my opinion.

[BlindSeeker]

Scriptures seem to indicate that the relationships between of men and women serve as a barometer of sorts of humanity's relationship with God. The decline of woman's respect for men is a reflection of man's/humanity's respect and reverence for God.

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

The greater burden of guilt and responsibility lies with the man . . . always.

[kross]

I give. There is nothing in what I said to point the blame at women. Perhaps some of you should look into the psychology of rapists a little deeper.

Yes rape and murder and all the other vile aspects of human beings have existed for as long as there have been human beings. But, rape in the ranks of the Hebrews in those times would not have been as prevalent. The dynamics of the culture were different than those of pirates or other rape and pillage types.

Sorry to have wasted the time

[Guest Butero]

Shiloh, I found that very helpful. It constantly amazes me how many errors are in our translations. More and more I'm going to the original languages and coming to my own conclusions.

bb,

p.

How can you be sure that the Hebrew and Greek copies you are reading from are anymore accurate than the English translations? Unless you have a copy of the original, I would suggest you are at no more advantage reading the Hebrew and Greek than someone is with a KJV Bible and an Abington-Strong's Concordance with Greek and Hebrew dictionary for a reference. It was translated from the Textus Receptus, which I believe was the original Word of God. Since you cannot find an original copy of the TR today, I don't believe you are at an advantage when it comes to accuracy reading Hebrew or Greek.

English is incapable of communicating the various nuances in Hebrew in a single word or phrase. . And Hebrew is far more precise than English, as well.

I would not argue against that, but if the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts one is reading from are unreliable, it doesn't matter if one can read Greek or Hebrew. They still won't come out any better than someone reading an English translation of the best manuscripts.

[Guest Butero]

This atheist friend of yours is correct about the difference between the woman who was betrothed and the one that was a virgin. There is no place in this passage that gives the death penalty to someone who rapes a single woman who is not engaged or married. While it has been stated by some that it does, I haven't seen any scripture to back that up.

The OT does not address every possible sin that could be committed in every possible scenario that cold arise. It doesn't have to. Rape was punishible by death regardless of the marital state of woman involved.

There is a death penalty imposed to someone who rapes a married or engaged woman, and there was a financial penalty to the one who rapes a single woman, to be paid to the girl's Father. In addition, the person had to marry the woman and could not put her away ever. This is plain to me.

The betrothal price was paid to father by the man who had mutually consentual sex with his daughter. It does not say he paid that price if the single girl was raped. One passage is talking about rape, and the other about consentual sex.

That is just your opinion Shiloh. There is no proof to back that up. I will even concede I cannot prove my position beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I have just as much on my side as you do. Each example mentioned differen't situations where rape was involved. It stands to reason that the final example involving the unmarried woman was dealing with rape as well.

[Guest Butero]

I believe that it is clear that the greater crime in GOD's eyes is the crime of sex outside of marriage. Thus, I feel it is indeed referring to the rape of a virgin. The only way for her not to be shamed for the rest of her, and the only way to ensure that a woman so treated would be married, is to force the rapist to marry her.

This may not fit into our society, but it did fit into theirs.

No, it didn't.

I agree with Shiloh. How is subjecting a woman to live forever with a man that raped her considered a good thing? I'm rather lost on that. Even if she is doomed to starve, how is it better for her to live a life of fear, abuse, pain, shame, mistreatment? There are things worse than dying.

That may be how people look at things today, but the times were differen't. If a man defiled a woman back then, it made it difficult for her to find a husband, and women were dependent on men more so at that time than today. Forcing the man to marry her, and take care of her for the rest of his life was God's requirement. Here is a story from the OT that gives an actual example of this taking place. 2 Samuel 13. I am going to begin at verse one, but will jump down for the sake of brevity.

1 AND it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her.

2 And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do any thing to her.

11 And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.

12 And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.

13 And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.

14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.

In this case, it is obvious that the feelings he had for her were lust rather than love, because after he had raped her, verse 15 says the love turned to hate.

15 Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone.

16 And she said unto him, There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But he would not hearken unto her.

17 Then he called his servant that ministered unto him, and said, Put now this woman out from me, and bolt the door after her.

18 And she had a garment of divers colours upon her: for with such robes were the king's daughters that were virgins apparelled. Then his servants brought her out, and bolted the door after her.

19 And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of divers colours that was on her, and laid her hand on her head, and went on crying.

Amnon was guilty of raping Tamar. Under the law, he was required to pay her Father and take her as his wife, and he could never put her away. He had committed two offenses, but notice that Tamar said the greater offense was not the rape but sending her away, verse 16. The times were differen't.

[Guest Butero]

I give. There is nothing in what I said to point the blame at women. Perhaps some of you should look into the psychology of rapists a little deeper.

Yes rape and murder and all the other vile aspects of human beings have existed for as long as there have been human beings. But, rape in the ranks of the Hebrews in those times would not have been as prevalent. The dynamics of the culture were different than those of pirates or other rape and pillage types.

Sorry to have wasted the time

If I understood you Kross, all you were saying was that in Biblical times, rape was done more out of lack of self control, and rape today is used more for the purpose of destroying the victim. In other words, it is more of a power thing today, as opposed to a lust thing in the Hebrew culture. I don't know if that is true or not, but it is an interesting thought.

[kross]

I will add that rape today is an act of violence against women. It was not likely to be an act of violence as much as an act of uncontrolled passion bach in the day.

What do you base this on?

Let me make this as clear as I can. Society is completely different now. Back in the days of the prophets, women were more reserved and compliant. They were not taking men's jobs or being "power chicks". They were kept in a state that would not be tolerated today.

Today, women are demanding, ambitious, headstrong and opinionated. They compete very well in the work place and they are not afraid to talk back or even disrespect a man in the work place or in public. In addition, sex is tossed at us from every media. Women spend more time wanting to dress and look "Sexy" then they do to look "GODly".

This social dynamic has created a class of men who resent women to the point of hatred that manifests intself in the desire to debase women in the most humiliating way possible. Rape works better than murder because it lingers. Rape is the usuall choice for the release of this rage.

Now, yes it is possible that the scripture is speaking of a man coercing a woman (as opposed to rape) But I still feel that it is more likely that this is more a case of forced relations.

It is not something I will beat around with y'all. I have made my understanding known and tried to give reason. Whatever we believe on this subject is not going to change anything.

You will recall that there is a story of a young man who rapes one of the daughters of Joseph. ( her name starts with a T as I recall) He would have married her but the brothers went in and killed all of the men of the town on the third day after they were cercumsized.

I don't go along with this at all, brother. Raping and pillaging has been with us as long as there have been men (humankind) that wanted more land, more money, more stuff. For thousands of years women have been raped whether it was for spoils of war or whatever. It had nothing to do with their trying to usurp mans' place in the world, nor how they dressed, nor even how they looked. It was because they were disadvantaged in strength and protection. They were/and have been raped for a sense of dominance, or control by the man. And, there are the instances of flat out pure evil done simply to torment, to hurt, to inflict pain and shame. Some of these woman don't make it out alive.

I understand there are times when it's done out of sexual passion and desire, lack of self control. But that is no more defensible than the other reasons, in my book.

I understand that you are not condoning it kross. And, I understand what you're saying about today's society and how lax we've become with modesty and how we interact with one another. But, to suggest that the woman carries part of the blame is, in my opinion, part of the problem. Men have just as much responsibility to control their actions as do the women. But, to carry that further, in my opinion - men actually have more responsibility. They are to be the spiritual head of the family, yet they are abandoning their faith, leaving their households, and allowing their children to grow up fatherless. They should be there, teaching, instructing, leading the family in the ways of the Lord, protecting them, nourishing them. So yes, kross, I agree that society does have an impact on the way women are treated - but it's not always the womans fault.

Again - this is my opinion.

I do not think the woman, or women in general, carry the fault. A rapist is a rapist and carries all of his (or her) own guilt. But it is a social disorder in our day.

The fault lies with Satan. We do not battle flesh and blood, we battle the demonic spiritual war.

[Guest shiloh357]

This atheist friend of yours is correct about the difference between the woman who was betrothed and the one that was a virgin. There is no place in this passage that gives the death penalty to someone who rapes a single woman who is not engaged or married. While it has been stated by some that it does, I haven't seen any scripture to back that up.

The OT does not address every possible sin that could be committed in every possible scenario that cold arise. It doesn't have to. Rape was punishible by death regardless of the marital state of woman involved.

There is a death penalty imposed to someone who rapes a married or engaged woman, and there was a financial penalty to the one who rapes a single woman, to be paid to the girl's Father. In addition, the person had to marry the woman and could not put her away ever. This is plain to me.

The betrothal price was paid to father by the man who had mutually consentual sex with his daughter. It does not say he paid that price if the single girl was raped. One passage is talking about rape, and the other about consentual sex.

That is just your opinion Shiloh. There is no proof to back that up. I will even concede I cannot prove my position beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I have just as much on my side as you do. Each example mentioned differen't situations where rape was involved. It stands to reason that the final example involving the unmarried woman was dealing with rape as well.

NO it is not my opinion, it is what the text says. Read your Bible.

They are NOT all rape because in one case, the girl cries out for help and in the case of the other, she doesn't call for help which indicates consentual action, not rape. It is really, really simple if you just read what the text says instead of trying to force something into the text that is not there.

[Guest shiloh357]

I will add that rape today is an act of violence against women. It was not likely to be an act of violence as much as an act of uncontrolled passion bach in the day.

What do you base this on?

Let me make this as clear as I can. Society is completely different now. Back in the days of the prophets, women were more reserved and compliant. They were not taking men's jobs or being "power chicks". They were kept in a state that would not be tolerated today.

Today, women are demanding, ambitious, headstrong and opinionated. They compete very well in the work place and they are not afraid to talk back or even disrespect a man in the work place or in public. In addition, sex is tossed at us from every media. Women spend more time wanting to dress and look "Sexy" then they do to look "GODly".

This social dynamic has created a class of men who resent women to the point of hatred that manifests intself in the desire to debase women in the most humiliating way possible. Rape works better than murder because it lingers. Rape is the usuall choice for the release of this rage.

Now, yes it is possible that the scripture is speaking of a man coercing a woman (as opposed to rape) But I still feel that it is more likely that this is more a case of forced relations.

It is not something I will beat around with y'all. I have made my understanding known and tried to give reason. Whatever we believe on this subject is not going to change anything.

You will recall that there is a story of a young man who rapes one of the daughters of Joseph. ( her name starts with a T as I recall) He would have married her but the brothers went in and killed all of the men of the town on the third day after they were cercumsized.

I don't go along with this at all, brother. Raping and pillaging has been with us as long as there have been men (humankind) that wanted more land, more money, more stuff. For thousands of years women have been raped whether it was for spoils of war or whatever. It had nothing to do with their trying to usurp mans' place in the world, nor how they dressed, nor even how they looked. It was because they were disadvantaged in strength and protection. They were/and have been raped for a sense of dominance, or control by the man. And, there are the instances of flat out pure evil done simply to torment, to hurt, to inflict pain and shame. Some of these woman don't make it out alive.

I understand there are times when it's done out of sexual passion and desire, lack of self control. But that is no more defensible than the other reasons, in my book.

I understand that you are not condoning it kross. And, I understand what you're saying about today's society and how lax we've become with modesty and how we interact with one another. But, to suggest that the woman carries part of the blame is, in my opinion, part of the problem. Men have just as much responsibility to control their actions as do the women. But, to carry that further, in my opinion - men actually have more responsibility. They are to be the spiritual head of the family, yet they are abandoning their faith, leaving their households, and allowing their children to grow up fatherless. They should be there, teaching, instructing, leading the family in the ways of the Lord, protecting them, nourishing them. So yes, kross, I agree that society does have an impact on the way women are treated - but it's not always the womans fault.

Again - this is my opinion.

I do not think the woman, or women in general, carry the fault. A rapist is a rapist and carries all of his (or her) own guilt. But it is a social disorder in our day.

The fault lies with Satan. We do not battle flesh and blood, we battle the demonic spiritual war.

I thought you believed it was God's fault and that God made the world so that sin would run rampant and that innocent suffer and raping young girls was within the purview of God's will. At least that is the what you used teach around here.