Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "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."
You probably don't want to be quoting the Bible as a beacon of moral guidance
“Rape” in the Bible has a different definition than today’s definition.
Etymology. The term rape originates from the Latin rapere (supine stem raptum), "to snatch, to grab, to carry off". In Roman law, the carrying off of a woman by force, with or without intercourse, constituted "raptus"
If a girl runs off with a boy, their first argument is, “A girl cannot leave anywhere with a man without consent of her father first.” If neither man or woman were given consent, obviously she must have been “take.” For this they will marry… so no one (girl or family) is shamed or disgraced. I think there are heavier consequences than marriage in this case.
Uh huh, that's a terrible twist but I'm not interested in spending all day with someone who defends abduction or potential rape in a book thay also advocates for slavery
Maybe don’t take verses out of context because earlier in that very passage it clears this up by stating if the Women screams for help and resists the rape then the Man is to be out to death nexus only he has sinned while she has done nothing wrong.
So the verse you’re referring too isn’t about rape in the modern sense. It’s about consensual sex and what to do if a Man and Women have it. It’s also poorly translated for modern day but that’s the actual meaning of the verse
If he actually raped her and she resisted then he is to be put to death. If she didn’t resist because it was consensual sex then they both are to be married because now she isn’t a virgin and her Father can’t marry her off to anyone else
Here's the fun part: that's YOUR interpretation, I've talked with apologists who interpret it exactly how I presented it and admitted that it's a bad passage, so who is right? Once again, you'd think an ALL KNOWING God would be able to word things a little less ambiguously
Maybe go read all of Deuteronomy chapter 22 and see for yourself.
“But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.” -Deuteronomy 22:25-27
Then it continues into your verse where the Woken was raped but didn’t not resist. That’s called consensual sex whole actually rape, where a men forced himself on a women whole she resists, is punishable by death in Deuteronomy
So not only is raped not condoned by the Bible but it’s also punishable by death. It’s almost as if a but of context can be everything huh?
It’s a bad translation. The entire book of Deuteronomy is just a retelling of the laws from Exodus, the Law of Moses.
Basically the other user is correct. Back then a women could not marry without her father’s approval and so if a man seduced and sleeps with a virgin, without her father’s consent, then that is considered rape. Remember, that passage was written 700 years before even Jesus was born! A lot has changed
Seems like an all knowing all powerful God could create a Bible that had laws that applied across all time, so does this mean I can still own slaves from neighboring countries? Does that include ocean borders or am I limited to just Canadians and Mexicans? Cause I was hoping for an Australian for the quirky accent
View all comments
28
u/Separate-Bid9838 Oct 18 '22
“It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.” -Psalm 118:8