Old Testament God?

[Hassan]

Even when I was a practicing Roman Catholic it was always difficult to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament. Thomas Pain notes this in his “The Age of Reason”. Much of his chastisement of the Christian faith seemed confused; however he seemed spot on with this observation,

[i]Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason][/i]
The contemporary comedian Lewis Black noted this discrepancy somewhat less eloquently.

I just don’t see how Roman Catholics could possibly claim that the commands of the Old Testament God are not abominable.

He condones slavery and sets specific commands how the institution ought to be structured:

[i]However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)[/i]
[i]When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)[/i]

The indiscriminate killing of women and children:

[i]They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves[/i]

[i]Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
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.(note that adultery warrents the death penality, yet rape dosen’t seem to be particularly wrong)[/i]

Here is a gem:

[i]Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Samuel 15:2-3. See also Exodus 17:7-13.)[/i]
If any dictator permitted half the atrocities commanded by God in the Old Testament he’d be tried for war crimes. I just don’t understand how any Christian can reconcile the rather pacifistic Jesus with Yahweh. I further cannot comprehend how anyone could say these actions are morally just.

It seems like these verses are explained away with platitudes and abstraction rather then explaining all the particular instances. It is often said that the societies God commands to be slaughtered wholesale were so corrupt that no other option was available. I find it inconceivable that babies and children were so corrupt that their slaughter was necessary. Yes Jesus “completed” the Old Testament. That does not change the fact that God at one point in time permitted slavery.

I understand this is a bit long however I felt it necessary to provide very specific instances to prevent these issues from being brushed away with generalities. I have to say this has never been satisfactorily answered for me. I understand that there is a great deal of good in the Torah and larger Old Testament, I just don’t understand how the immoral provisions can be reconciled with either a God of Justice or a God of mercy.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Hassan

[Selah]

I struggle with this too Hassan. It helps a little to understand that this was a different time and culture, not like our Western Culture in any way. Slavery then was different, you see. A slave was a person who had a debt that he needed to pay to the slaveholder for whatever reason. He paid off this debt by working for him. During this time, the slave became a part of the family he served. Around the year of Jubilee, I believe, the slave was set free. It was nothing like the slavery during the Civil War.

[quote]Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
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.(note that adultery warrents the death penality, yet rape dosen’t seem to be particularly wrong)[/quote]

Again, you need to understand that this was set down by God in order for the men to know that the women were not objects. Note that he is never to divorce her...he must live with her, work with her, eat with her, sleep with her. She becomes a part of his life, and he a part of hers. Suddenly she is not just a pair of pretty legs any more, is she? She is a living, breathing, human being, and by living with her, the man understands that.

Adultry was serious in those days because of how marriage was seen. It was a sacred act, unifying two people. Breaking it would then be almost anathema, woudn't it?


[quote]Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves[/quote]

When you quoted this, I got the impression that you thought this meant Moses was commanding them to "Kill them all, but have fun with the virgins!" This isn't the case at all. The virgins were simply able to become Jews.

[quote]They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.[/quote]

You must understand, this was not a random killing. Midian was a wicked city. There was so many vile things going on, they were almost at the point of no return. It would continue on for generations unless something was done about it. And yes, they would teach there children to do so, and so forth and so on...This goes for the Amelikites as well.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Selah' post='1600203' date='Jul 14 2008, 11:07 PM']I struggle with this too Hassan.[/quote]

Well thank you for responding:)

[quote]It helps a little to understand that this was a different time and culture, not like our Western Culture in any way. Slavery then was different, you see. A slave was a person who had a debt that he needed to pay to the slaveholder for whatever reason. He paid off this debt by working for him. During this time, the slave became a part of the family he served. Around the year of Jubilee, I believe, the slave was set free. It was nothing like the slavery during the Civil War.[/quote]

That's a common retort, but it doesn’t seem to match up with the Bible. God himself is very specific that the master owns the slave. Nothing in the Bible's dictations that I am aware of really support this. There are some protections for slaves.

[quote]Again, you need to understand that this was set down by God in order for the men to know that the women were not objects. Note that he is never to divorce her...he must live with her, work with her, eat with her, sleep with her. She becomes a part of his life, and he a part of hers. Suddenly she is not just a pair of pretty legs any more, is she? She is a living, breathing, human being, and by living with her, the man understands that.[/quote]

But God's own orders contradict this. Men are not to devote themselves to one woman, they may take multiple wives. Daughters may be sold into slavery, women are routinely given as booty after conquests, and their protection from sexual assault doesn’t seem to be as important to God as a child cursing his parents, which warrants stoning to death, not the simple fine that comes with rape.

[quote]Adultry was serious in those days because of how marriage was seen. It was a sacred act, unifying two people. Breaking it would then be almost anathema, woudn't it?[/quote]

But it wasn’t between two people. Men could maintain multiple wives.

[quote]When you quoted this, I got the impression that you thought this meant Moses was commanding them to "Kill them all, but have fun with the virgins!" This isn't the case at all. The virgins were simply able to become Jews.[/quote]

Fair enough:)
[quote]You must understand, this was not a random killing. Midian was a wicked city. There was so many vile things going on, they were almost at the point of no return. It would continue on for generations unless something was done about it. And yes, they would teach there children to do so, and so forth and so on...This goes for the Amelikites as well.[/quote]


If the problem was the children being raised to follow in their parents footsteps then why not slaughter the men and women, and have the Israeli's raise the children and babies. By God's own law the children under the age of reason couldn’t be guilt of any sin.

Thank you for your responses. I hope you find your Lebanese heart, mine is still in Greece:p

Edited July 15, 2008 by Hassan

[Selah]

Again, I understand. Perhaps I shall let someone who knows a bit more then I help you further

I will pray for you.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Selah' post='1600211' date='Jul 14 2008, 11:30 PM']Again, I understand. Perhaps I shall let someone who knows a bit more then I help you further

I will pray for you.[/quote]

thank you

[lilac_angel]

I know this may not answer all the questions, but I found this just now:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 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." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

At first glance this passage does seem to condone rape. That is, until one takes a careful look at the context as well as the original languages. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author's intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction rape at all.

In the first place, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon in reference to these two words:

taphas -

# 08610
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

a) (Qal)
1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

AV - take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4, surprised 2, misc 4; 65
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

Here is one example of how this word is used:

"The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal (taphas) with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols." Jeremiah 2:8


shakab -

# 07901
1) to lie down

a) (Qal)
1) to lie, lie down, lie on
2) to lodge
3) to lie (of sexual relations)
4) to lie down (in death)
5) to rest, relax (fig)
b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
e) (Hophal) to be laid

AV - lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2, misc 10; 212
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:

"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—" Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV

Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn't forced into having sex. Again:

"If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening." Leviticus 15:18

These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

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; KJV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

"If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn't use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.

This is supported by other OT passages. In the places where rape is mentioned none of them use the word taphas. The words chazaq and anah are used:

"Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized (laqach) her and lay (shakab) with her and humiliated (anah) her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this girl for my wife.’ Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing (n’balah) in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must not be done." Genesis 34:1-7 ESV

And:

"Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food into the chamber, that I may eat from your hand.’ And Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, ‘Come, lie with me, my sister.’ She answered him, ‘No, my brother, do not violate (anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing (n’balah). As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous geniuses in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.’ But he would not listen to her, and being stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated (anah) her and lay (shakab) with her. Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, ‘Get up! Go!’ But she said to him, ‘No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.’ But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him and said, "Put this woman out of my presence and bolt the door after her.’ Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus were the virgin daughters of the king dressed. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long robe that she wore. And she laid her hand on her head and went away, crying aloud as she went. And her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to heart.’ So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom's house. When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated (anah) his sister Tamar ... But Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David's brother, said, ‘Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated (anah) his sister Tamar.’" 2 Samuel 13:10-22, 32 ESV

Notice that neither passage uses the word taphas, providing additional support that this word in of itself doesn’t necessarily imply the use of force. It also demonstrates our point that if the inspired author had rape in view he could have simply used chazaq, or even laqach, since these are the very words he used elsewhere to indicate that a rape had occurred.

The final line of evidence demonstrating that Deuteronomy 22:28 does not condone rape comes from Exodus:

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines pathah as:



# 06601
1) to be spacious, be open, be wide

a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
a) (Qal)
1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
2) to be enticed, be deceived
b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
c) (Piel)
1) to persuade, seduce
2) to deceive
d) (Pual)
1) to be persuaded
2) to be deceived

AV - entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2, allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1; 28
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

As can be seen, the word can mean entice, persuade, deceive etc. The following passage uses the word in a slightly similar fashion to that of Exodus, namely how God will allure or draw Israel back to his love:

"‘Therefore I am now going to allure (pathath) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me "my husband"; you will no longer call me "my master." I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.’" Hosea 2:14-20

It is clear from the context that Exodus is referring to a man persuading or enticing a woman into having sex. Hence, this passage lends support to the fact that the woman in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 consented to the sexual act, and wasn't forced into having sex. In other words, there was no rape involved between the man and the woman.

As the following Study Bible puts it:

22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman's father. It is assumed that the bride's father's rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price. (The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha [Abingdon Press, Nashville TN 2003], pp. 278-279; underline and capital emphasis ours)

This concludes our exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. ... Hopefully, both Christians and Muslims will see that the Holy Bible nowhere condones rape."

[url="http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm"]http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm[/url]

I also found this on a different site, regarding God seeming to tacitly allow rape:

"In these paragraphs there appears to be a series of complex questions which, in reality, really involve a mistaken understanding and misinterpretation of God's Word.

First, it is incorrect to interpret a sanctioning of rape by God (tacitly or otherwise) being that it is unfounded in light of His character and Laws. The verses cited as examples are not properly interpreted and therefore cannot be used as an argument for such.

Let's look at the first reference used: Numbers 31:18.

The context of this particular Scripture involves the distribution of captives of war. In study of the battles that were taking place during this time, God had often required the total extermination of all. In this instance, God allowed the taking of women and children unto themselves. It has nothing to do with rape. The custom would be for the conquering armies to take the defeated people as slaves unto themselves. Those women who were virgins and children would be the desired ones to keep. Keeping in mind that these wars during the conquest of Canaan were wars of extermination, it was an act of GRACE to allow these heathen people to remain alive, even as slaves... Therefore it would not be an act requiring rebuke or condemnation by God.

In the other examples cited regarding the rights and welfare of the woman, we must keep in mind the context of what is being recorded, as well as the Eastern custom concerning men and women. A thought foreign to Western custom is the rights and power of the man as head of his house. In America a man can ask a woman to be his bride, and if she consents, they can proceed with their plans. It is only out of courtesy that a gentleman asks the father of the bride for the hand of his daughter in marriage. In the East, the daughter belongs to the father and cannot be taken at will by any Romeo who comes along and finds her attractive. To this day there is a dowry required of the man desiring a young lady to be his wife in many countries of the world.

The discovery of a couple who had engaged in sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage carried stiff penalties. It could mean the death of one or both of the parties involved. (Study further the consequences of fornication and adultery.) When this act was a forced act, in the case of rape, then God gave specific instruction as to the way He wanted Moses to deal with it.

The victim of rape is always left with the shame and psychological repercussions of such a wicked act. Only God can take one who has been so violated and restore them. His grace is sufficient for anything we face. However, in Scripture, if the woman cried out for help, she would be released from any other penalty. The man who forced her would be destroyed (Deuteronomy 22:25), but the woman would be allowed to go free. The woman who did not cry out would be as guilty as the man for the fact that it appears she was a willing accomplice, and therefore not a victim. Concerning whether a couple has been caught or not, we know that ALL sin will one day be judged by a Holy God who sees all! No one will get away with hidden sin."

Full text with question is here:

[url="http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html"]http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html[/url]

Edited July 15, 2008 by lilac_angel

[Deb]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1600209' date='Jul 15 2008, 12:28 AM']Well thank you for responding:)



That's a common retort, but it doesn't seem to match up with the Bible. God himself is very specific that the master owns the slave. Nothing in the Bible's dictations that I am aware of really support this. There are some protections for slaves.

[b]It is a common retort because it is true. Yes, the bible does talk about treatment of slaves. Treatment of slaves generally depended on the character of the master (Gen 24; 39:1-6). But a set of regulations governed the treatment of domestic slaves (Ex 21; Deut 15:1). Repeatedly, Israel was instructed by the law not to rule over a fellow Israelite harshly (Lev 25:39; Deut 15:14). If a master beat a slave or harmed him, the law provided that the slave could go free (Ex 21:26-27); and the killing of a slave called for a penalty (Ex 21:20). Slaves were allowed to secure their freedom. Under the Jewish law, no Hebrew was to be the permanent slave of another Hebrew. After six years of service, a slave was to be released (Ex 21:2; Deut 15:12). In the Year of JUBILEE, no matter how long a slave had served, he was to be released (Lev 25:37-43). If a slave desired to continue with his master, he would have a mark made in the ear; this mark would signify that he had chosen to remain a slave (Ex 21:5-6). A slave could also buy his freedom, or another person could buy his freedom for him (Lev 25:47-49

...and of course, all were slaves to sin.

[/b]

But God's own orders contradict this. Men are not to devote themselves to one woman, they may take multiple wives. Daughters may be sold into slavery, women are routinely given as booty after conquests, and their protection from sexual assault doesn't seem to be as important to God as a child cursing his parents, which warrants stoning to death, not the simple fine that comes with rape.

[b]You have many incorrect interpretations and you really need to look at the culture and the historical data outside the bible along with the bible to understand it. I was named after Deborah of the bible, a judge of the people. Women were in different roles throughout the history of the jews but, they were to be loved and cared for. It was a patriarchal society. Women have always outnumbered men and with the constant wars there were many more women than men. Women were looked on as needing to be cared for and many children were desired. It was almost impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. If a man took many wives, he would be their provider and protector. What we look on now as something outrageous was really something that allowed all to have dignity and a place in the community. The original intentions of God were for one man and one woman and this is brought forth very strongly by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Everything in man's history and in the Old Testament was leading to the new covenant with Jesus Christ and should be viewed as such. When one reads the Old Testament, all should be read with Jesus in mind. [/b]


But it wasn't between two people. Men could maintain multiple wives.



Fair enough:)



If the problem was the children being raised to follow in their parents footsteps then why not slaughter the men and women, and have the Israeli's raise the children and babies. By God's own law the children under the age of reason couldn't be guilt of any sin.

[b]Because of a very sad reality called vengeance. [/b]

Thank you for your responses. I hope you find your Lebanese heart, mine is still in Greece:p[/quote]

[mortify]

I personally don't have a problem with it because I understand that mankind grew according to God's providence. Earlier in history the world was brutal and only force could be used, it's not like the Amakalites were any different. Whatever God alloted for a nation, if it meant it's survival or complete destruction, it wholly fitted His Justice. Not a single soul was lost that would not have deserved it, even if it included an infant, why? Because God knows the future, sometimes God's wrath fulfills His Mercy by preventing a person to sin further, or makes them realize they need to repent. If they repent before death they are saved, and that is what is most important. Now how could God permit such things? God permits it so that greater good may come out of it, and certainly God's providence has uplifted mankind from it's darkness to a point where even disbeliever are not as violent. Since not everyone may agree with me, I'll emphasize these are my personal opinions, and not necessarily the beliefs of other Catholics or even what a theologian may say.

[Selah]

Good point, Mortify. It seems grotesque now, but if you understand God's mercy, you understand He was protecting the infants from the future they could have...a future full of suffering (child sacrifice) and becoming as depraved as their ancestors.

[mortify]

Hmm, let me just point out that we have evolved morally because of God's providence. If we were born in that earlier stage of mankind we would have no qualms doing what was commanded; today we do because we've matured morally. Just as some things are acceptable for children but not adults, some things were acceptable for our ancient forebearers that are no longer acceptable.

God works according to what we can handle and lifts us up.

[lilac_angel]

[quote]Women were in different roles throughout the history of the jews but, they were to be loved and cared for. It was a patriarchal society. Women have always outnumbered men and with the constant wars there were many more women than men. Women were looked on as needing to be cared for and many children were desired. It was almost impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. If a man took many wives, he would be their provider and protector. What we look on now as something outrageous was really something that allowed all to have dignity and a place in the community. The original intentions of God were for one man and one woman and this is brought forth very strongly by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Everything in man's history and in the Old Testament was leading to the new covenant with Jesus Christ and should be viewed as such. When one reads the Old Testament, all should be read with Jesus in mind.[/quote]

Deb, you put this beautifully and it helped me w/ a little nagging uncertainty of mine.

[quote]Hmm, let me just point out that we have evolved morally because of God's providence. If we were born in that earlier stage of mankind we would have no qualms doing what was commanded; today we do because we've matured morally. Just as some things are acceptable for children but not adults, some things were acceptable for our ancient forebearers that are no longer acceptable.

God works according to what we can handle and lifts us up.[/quote]

Also a good point.

Edited July 15, 2008 by lilac_angel

[Galloglasses]

Woah, some epic Apologetics going on here.

[Selah]

care to join in?

[Nihil Obstat]

Wooooow!
This is why I love phatmass.

[Hassan]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1600245' date='Jul 15 2008, 01:07 AM']I know this may not answer all the questions, but I found this just now:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 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." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

At first glance this passage does seem to condone rape. That is, until one takes a careful look at the context as well as the original languages. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author's intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction rape at all.

In the first place, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon in reference to these two words:

taphas -

# 08610
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

a) (Qal)
1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

AV - take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4, surprised 2, misc 4; 65
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

Here is one example of how this word is used:

"The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal (taphas) with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols." Jeremiah 2:8
shakab -

# 07901
1) to lie down

a) (Qal)
1) to lie, lie down, lie on
2) to lodge
3) to lie (of sexual relations)
4) to lie down (in death)
5) to rest, relax (fig)
b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
e) (Hophal) to be laid

AV - lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2, misc 10; 212
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:

"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—" Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV

Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn't forced into having sex. Again:

"If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening." Leviticus 15:18

These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

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; KJV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

"If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn't use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.

This is supported by other OT passages. In the places where rape is mentioned none of them use the word taphas. The words chazaq and anah are used:

"Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized (laqach) her and lay (shakab) with her and humiliated (anah) her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this girl for my wife.’ Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing (n’balah) in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must not be done." Genesis 34:1-7 ESV

And:

"Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food into the chamber, that I may eat from your hand.’ And Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, ‘Come, lie with me, my sister.’ She answered him, ‘No, my brother, do not violate (anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing (n’balah). As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous geniuses in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.’ But he would not listen to her, and being stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated (anah) her and lay (shakab) with her. Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, ‘Get up! Go!’ But she said to him, ‘No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.’ But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him and said, "Put this woman out of my presence and bolt the door after her.’ Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus were the virgin daughters of the king dressed. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long robe that she wore. And she laid her hand on her head and went away, crying aloud as she went. And her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to heart.’ So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom's house. When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated (anah) his sister Tamar ... But Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David's brother, said, ‘Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated (anah) his sister Tamar.’" 2 Samuel 13:10-22, 32 ESV

Notice that neither passage uses the word taphas, providing additional support that this word in of itself doesn’t necessarily imply the use of force. It also demonstrates our point that if the inspired author had rape in view he could have simply used chazaq, or even laqach, since these are the very words he used elsewhere to indicate that a rape had occurred.

The final line of evidence demonstrating that Deuteronomy 22:28 does not condone rape comes from Exodus:

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines pathah as:
# 06601
1) to be spacious, be open, be wide

a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
a) (Qal)
1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
2) to be enticed, be deceived
b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
c) (Piel)
1) to persuade, seduce
2) to deceive
d) (Pual)
1) to be persuaded
2) to be deceived

AV - entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2, allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1; 28
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

As can be seen, the word can mean entice, persuade, deceive etc. The following passage uses the word in a slightly similar fashion to that of Exodus, namely how God will allure or draw Israel back to his love:

"‘Therefore I am now going to allure (pathath) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me "my husband"; you will no longer call me "my master." I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.’" Hosea 2:14-20

It is clear from the context that Exodus is referring to a man persuading or enticing a woman into having sex. Hence, this passage lends support to the fact that the woman in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 consented to the sexual act, and wasn't forced into having sex. In other words, there was no rape involved between the man and the woman.

As the following Study Bible puts it:

22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman's father. It is assumed that the bride's father's rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price. (The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha [Abingdon Press, Nashville TN 2003], pp. 278-279; underline and capital emphasis ours)

This concludes our exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. ... Hopefully, both Christians and Muslims will see that the Holy Bible nowhere condones rape."

[url="http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm"]http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm[/url]

I also found this on a different site, regarding God seeming to tacitly allow rape:

"In these paragraphs there appears to be a series of complex questions which, in reality, really involve a mistaken understanding and misinterpretation of God's Word.

First, it is incorrect to interpret a sanctioning of rape by God (tacitly or otherwise) being that it is unfounded in light of His character and Laws. The verses cited as examples are not properly interpreted and therefore cannot be used as an argument for such.

Let's look at the first reference used: Numbers 31:18.

The context of this particular Scripture involves the distribution of captives of war. In study of the battles that were taking place during this time, God had often required the total extermination of all. In this instance, God allowed the taking of women and children unto themselves. It has nothing to do with rape. The custom would be for the conquering armies to take the defeated people as slaves unto themselves. Those women who were virgins and children would be the desired ones to keep. Keeping in mind that these wars during the conquest of Canaan were wars of extermination, it was an act of GRACE to allow these heathen people to remain alive, even as slaves... Therefore it would not be an act requiring rebuke or condemnation by God.

In the other examples cited regarding the rights and welfare of the woman, we must keep in mind the context of what is being recorded, as well as the Eastern custom concerning men and women. A thought foreign to Western custom is the rights and power of the man as head of his house. In America a man can ask a woman to be his bride, and if she consents, they can proceed with their plans. It is only out of courtesy that a gentleman asks the father of the bride for the hand of his daughter in marriage. In the East, the daughter belongs to the father and cannot be taken at will by any Romeo who comes along and finds her attractive. To this day there is a dowry required of the man desiring a young lady to be his wife in many countries of the world.

The discovery of a couple who had engaged in sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage carried stiff penalties. It could mean the death of one or both of the parties involved. (Study further the consequences of fornication and adultery.) When this act was a forced act, in the case of rape, then God gave specific instruction as to the way He wanted Moses to deal with it.

The victim of rape is always left with the shame and psychological repercussions of such a wicked act. Only God can take one who has been so violated and restore them. His grace is sufficient for anything we face. However, in Scripture, if the woman cried out for help, she would be released from any other penalty. The man who forced her would be destroyed (Deuteronomy 22:25), but the woman would be allowed to go free. The woman who did not cry out would be as guilty as the man for the fact that it appears she was a willing accomplice, and therefore not a victim. Concerning whether a couple has been caught or not, we know that ALL sin will one day be judged by a Holy God who sees all! No one will get away with hidden sin."

Full text with question is here:

[url="http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html"]http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html[/url][/quote]


I think your absolutly right