Anonymous #1 7w

I have.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

lol okay

1

Anonymous #1 7w

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

1

Anonymous #1 7w

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

1

Anonymous #1 7w

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

1

Anonymous #1 7w

23-24 is for when a man lie with a “betrothed virgin” in “the city”. 25-27 is for a man lie with a “betrothed virgin” in “the field” 28-29 is for a man lie with an “unbetrothed virgin”

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Yeah I understand that but you left out the part where he said they should die no?

5

Anonymous #1 7w

No I included all of 23-29. 30 is talking about taking your fathers wife or his skirt

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Oh I’m not really sure honestly but I’m sure he had a good reason for it!!

1

Anonymous #1 7w

Basically: man and betrothed in city - both die. Man and betrothed in the field - man dies Man and unbetrothed - man marries woman

1

Anonymous #1 7w

Just curious though do you believe in Jesus?

1

Anonymous #1 7w

Yes

1

Anonymous #2 7w

This makes sense appreciate it.

8

Anonymous OP 7w

Okay I was just curious sorry if that came off rude

1

Anonymous #2 7w

I understand that interpretation, I like it a lot more, but I don’t think it is correct as they understood it at the time. The words are very clear that the distinction between 23-27 are for engaged women (where another man had already paid the father for the daughter) in different places (the city being harsher bc that implies the woman was consenting) Whereas 28-29 are for unengaged women whose fathers hadn’t been paid for the daughter’s marriage yet, hence the financial reparations only.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

But I’m sure he had a good reasoning for it. Can’t wait to ask him all of the questions I want to know when I get to the heaven gates!

1

Anonymous #1 7w

You sure it was god that made this law, and not the patriarchal society that placed financial value on a woman’s virginity?

4

Anonymous OP 7w

I mean God wrote the bible no?

0

Anonymous OP 7w

The clearest argument against this would be the difference in the use of the Hebrew words in these verses to refer to the act, 23-27 all use chazaq which directly implies physical force, whereas 28 and 29 use the word tapas, which still means to take/seize, but doesn't directly imply the use of physical force.

4

Anonymous OP 7w

I see the word tapas in context as similar to "taking one's virginity" today, thus I do not think the text is referring to forcible rape in Deuteronomy 28/29.

5

Anonymous #2 7w

Tapas is less forceful yes, but it’s more inclusive than hazaq. Tapas could therefore include both consensual and nonconsensual relations. I.e, there was no difference in the old law between a man and unengaged woman lying together consensually or not, bc the object of concern was the woman’s virginity not her trauma or lacktherof

1

Anonymous #2 7w

Furthermore, it’s been scholarly tradition to interpret 28-29 as rape also. That tradition could be wrong sure, but that is the majority accepted consensus afaik

1

Anonymous #1 7w

No, men wrote the bible. All scripture is “god breathed”, not god written. God speaks into existence, but men have written down what god spoke. AFAIK the only *text* that is described as coming from god are the commandments on the tablets

3

Anonymous OP 7w

Also the quotes from Jesus

5

Anonymous OP 7w

Well that brings up an even deeper argument into what church is the one described by Jesus

2

Anonymous #2 7w

I for one am partial to the Nestorian church, but only bc their historical side quests were so interesting compared to the ones that remained in Europe lol

1

Anonymous #2 7w

But yeah, there’s 2,000-4,000 years of mankinds politics, wars, sins, etc influencing our understanding of gods spoken word. I find it difficult to believe, given the nature of humankind, that we have an accurate understanding today. I think it’s critically important to consider what society was like then, what they valued, what drove the economy, who were their enemies, etc

1

Anonymous OP 7w

*Not accurate but completely accurate*. I’m sure it still resembles what was originally meant in a way

1

Anonymous #1 7w

Just Chiming in that there’s basically no denomination that says god wrote the Bible. It’s divinely inspired, not divinely written. And the idea of scriptural infallibility is basically a modern evangelical thing.

5

Anonymous OP 7w

Sorry if this is rude but I feel like the Bible isn’t that worthwhile as a book of morals if you can’t trust what’s in it.

1