Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist [Archive]

View Full Version : Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist

Richard Amiel McGough

03-14-2012, 07:50 PM

This is a very sad violation of human rights:

Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist (http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/14/200577.html)

A 16-year-old Moroccan girl has committed suicide after a judge ordered her to marry her rapist, according to Moroccan media reports.

Last year Amina’s parents filed charges against their daughter’s rapist, a man 10 years older than her but it was only recently that a judge in the northern city of Tangier decided that instead of punishing him, the two must be married.

The court’s decision to forcibly marry Amina to her rapist was supposed to 'resolve' the damage of sexual violation against her, but it led to more suffering in the unwelcoming home of her rapist/husband’s family.

Traumatized by the painful experience of rape, Amina decided to end her life by consuming rat poison in the house of her husband’s family, according to the Moroccan daily al-Massae.

According to the newspaper, this type of forced marriage is rooted in local rural traditions to safeguard the honor of girls who are raped.

Moroccan penal code exempts a rapist from punishment if he agrees to marry his victim.

Feminists have long demanded an amendment to this article.

Muslims adopted a lot from Judaism and Christianity. Here is a relevant passage from the Bible which commands rape victims to be "married" to their rapists for life:
Deuteronomy 22:28 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, 29 "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."

If you are not horrified by this, you are not using your imagination. Just take a moment to imagine that you are the rape victim, and that you have been condemned to live your entire life serving your rapist and bearing him children. And remember, he has complete rule over you, and can beat you if you get out of line, and you have no recourse of any kind. It's pretty obvious why that poor girl committed suicide.

Rose

03-14-2012, 07:57 PM

This is a very sad violation of human rights:

Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist (http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/14/200577.html)

Muslims adopted a lot from Judaism and Christianity. Here is a relevant passage from the Bible which commands rape victims to be "married" to their rapists for life:
Deuteronomy 22:28 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, 29 "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."

If you are not horrified by this, you are not using your imagination. Just take a moment to imagine that you are the rape victim, and that you have been condemned to live your entire life serving your rapist and bearing him children. And remember, he has complete rule over you, and can beat you if you get out of line, and you have no recourse of any kind. It's pretty obvious why that poor girl committed suicide.

Just one more horrific example that shows how destructive to human lives the teachings of the Bible are!

Rose

David M

03-15-2012, 07:33 AM

CWH

03-15-2012, 09:17 AM

It's me CWH, David and I don't mind quoting again. And I am wondering what is the motive of RAM and Rose. If they are trying to convert us to atheist or non-theists, they can forget it!

If you have read the book on the Rape of Nanking, the situation was 1,000 times worst than that Moroccan girl in which thousands of young Chinese women were raped by Japanese soldiers. Some were killed during the rapes and some committed suicides after the rapes, some were forced to prostitute themselves, many were impregnated by the Japanese soldiers knowing well that those were the soldiers who also killed their families, husbands, boyfriends and children. Many lived through that horrible trauma of rapes after WW2.

[QUOTE=CWH;42015][QUOTE]
Supposed President Obama visited your house and the mob outside demanded and forcing themselves to have sex with him, would you do a very heroic act by offering yourself, children and husband as a last resort so as to distract them and provide time for your beloved President to escape or be rescued? You know very well they are not interested in all the "holes" except Obama's so as to create world's headline, "President Obama raped by mobs!". They will most likely leave you and your family unharmed.

When we read Judge 19, the concubine was unfaithful to the husband and thus by right deserved death in those days but the husband did not do that out of mercy. Perhaps the husband still harbored that rage in him and eventually decided as a last resort to punish the concubine by throwing her out to the mob to be raped and at the same time saved all the rest. This is a very heroic act on the part of the concubine and perhaps the husband (which I believe God will pardon her sin and her husband) but unfortunately resulted in her death. Her death brought a good thing and that was the destruction of all the evil-doers of that town. Would you like to live in a town whereby the main pre-occupation of the residents is sex, sex, sex and nothing but perverse sex?
What would you do if you are faced with such a serious situation? Have one raped as a last resort to save all others or get all be raped?

Judge 19:
Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem, Judah. After she had been there four months, 3 her husband went to her to persuade her to return. He had with him his servant and two donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him. 4 His father-in-law, the woman’s father, prevailed on him to stay; so he remained with him three days, eating and drinking, and sleeping there.

Fine, but how about taking common accepted ancient cultures and context at those times....forced marriages, child marriages, arranged marriages, bride kidnapping, are'nt those the same as forcing themselves on another to want children? In ancient Jewish custom, all grown up children are expected to get married.

My question srtill stands, why didn't she scream or resisted like the other case? Silence means consent. The man paid 50 shekiels as dowry (in fact that was the sum of a marriage dowry in those days) to a proposed marriage which the father accepted. The father and the girl could have rejected that 50 shekiels if they wanted to and the man would have been stoned to death. What if the father was rich and doesn't need the money or what happened if the man cannot afford to pay? Please see wiki on Ancient Jewish marriages:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Relationships/Spouses_and_Partners/About_Marriage/Ancient_Jewish_Marriage.shtml

Excerpt:
The last step in the reform of the mohar institution was made by Simeon ben Shatach, head of the Pharisees, who were the ruling party in the state during the reign of the Maccabean queen, Salome Alexandra (76-67 B.C.E.). He declared that the mohar, which was ordinarily 200 silver dinars (50 shekels) for a girl, and 100 for a widow, should merely be written in the ketubah, the marriage deed, as a lien of the wife on the estate of her husband, to be paid to her only if he divorced her, or at his death!

I quoted all the disgusting customs of primitive people to show that they have nothing to do with disregard for women rights but that it is based on acceptable sexual and social norms. They may looked like rapes but they are not. I even know from wiki of a primitive tribe in ?Africa in which "rape" was a sexual norm before marriage and from another in which adolescent males were allowed to have sex with matured women prior to their marriages in order to gain sexual experience.

Same as I would say to you that if you want to disregard or ignore the sexual norms and practices of ancient people of the Middle East and declare some of those practices as rapes is up to you.

Yes, human morals are better than God :winking0071:... Free sex, promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, nudity, molest, rape, divorce, prostituition, abortion, pedophilia, bestiality, wife swapping etc. etc. If you can't see these happenings, I am afraid you are also a lost soul.

God Blessed. :pray:

Rose

03-15-2012, 09:58 AM

Hello Richard and Rose

Again you are promoting the same argument, even though someone (I forget who) has explained this passage in Deuteronomy to you and it is clear in the case of the man giving the father of the virgin 50 shekels of silver, that the girl did not cry rape, unlike the others spoken of in the same passage who cried rape. It is clear by implication that the girl consented and got found out.

So you are citing the wrong example and you are refusing to accept any better understanding of the verses you have been corrected on.

I will not be taking this any further in discussion; I only want others reading your comment to get truth which you are intent on avoiding. You are falsely accusing the Bible of bad teaching when your judgement is as bad as the judge who wrongly forced the couple to marry. It does not give me pleasure to be so blunt, but your intent on accusing the Bible, is blinding you sight as to the truth and it has to be pointed out so other do not make your mistake.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this example of man's injustice to light which is where the real blame lies.

David

You are totally wrong about the woman in Deut. 22. If you read the verse carefully you will see that the Hebrew word taphas is used, it is a forceful word which means to catch or seize; the same word is used in Judges 21, where the Benjamites go down to Shiloh and and taphas 200 virgins to take as wives.

Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) 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 (anah), he may not put her away all his days.

Judges 21:20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you (taphas) every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

Rose

Rose

03-15-2012, 10:12 AM

Twospirits

03-15-2012, 11:10 AM

Hi Gals and Guys,

Here is an article I found on Deut. 22:28-29 which may put some light on the subject. I thought I'd post it and let the readers decide how the passage is to be taken. After all they are the ones who have to live with it (accept it or not). Here is the source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mandm.org.nz%2F2009%2F07%2Fsu nday-study-does-the-bible-teach-that-a-rape-victim-has-to-marry-her-rapist.html&ei=6w5iT7P-KOq00AHk1rTJCA&usg=AFQjCNF3HkwsvnIVrvseYr-_zBgT_B-hqA&sig2=uCYYT--6io0fC5kCQHt2FQ

I often hear this claim brought up in dialogues and discussions with those skeptical of the Christian faith. Not long ago a correspondent cited that most medieval commentators taught, on the basis of Deut 22:28-29, that a woman who had been raped was commanded by God to marry her rapist. In particular he referred me to Maimonides who wrote, 'by this prohibition a man is forbidden to divorce a woman whom he has raped.'[2]*
In this post I want to address this line of argument. My response is two-fold, first I will argue that Martin’s translation of Deuteronomy is mistaken, second, I will suggest that the medieval commentators my correspondent referred to actually utilised a different definition of rape to that used today. My conclusion will be that this law does not command a woman to marry her rapist; it rather commands men who have sex with women to follow their sexual advances up with marital commitment, and teaches that failure to do so is forbidden by God.

Martin’s Translation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Martin cites Deut 22:28-29 as dealing with a situation where 'a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her.' He immediately states, without argument, that this refers to acts of rape. Although he does not say, it appears this conclusion is based on the verb 'seizes' in the English version he cites. Martin imports into this word the connotation of violent, coercive, abduction so that the sexual intercourse that follows is a rape. There are several problems with this claim.

First, and most obvious, the English word 'seizes' is not in The Torah. The word in The Torah is tabas; in Hebrew, tabas 'does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.'[3] While the word can refer to the capture of a city,[4] it is also used for 'handling' the harp and flute,[5] the sword,[6] a sickle,[7] a shield,[8] oars or a bow,[9] 'taking' God’s name[10] or dealing with the law of God.[11] The word simply means to 'lay hold of,' 'to take hold of something' or to 'grasp it in hand.' The more formal King James translation interprets the passage as, 'If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her.'

Second, there are good reasons in this context for interpreting the word in a manner where it does not have a connotation of force or violence. Here I will mention three.

The first reason is that the context strongly suggests it. Had the author intended to refer to rape then he would have used the word chazak which does carry the connotations Martin plays on. This is reinforced by the fact that three verses earlier the author does refer to a rape. The law immediately preceding this one begins, 'But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her …' here the word used is chazak, which suggests a violent seizure is used. Bahsen notes, 'Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply ‘take hold of’ her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25:25 (viz., rape).'[12]

The second reason is that Deut 22:28-29 actually repeats a law which has already been laid down in the book of Exodus. When one examines this law it is clear it does not refer to rape. The word 'Deuteronomy' in Greek means 'second law;' throughout the book of Deuteronomy, Moses repeats laws already laid down in the book of Exodus, sometimes expanding on them. The Decalogue, for example, which was delivered on Sinai in Exodus 20, is repeated again in Deuteronomy 5. The laws about releasing an ebed (or indentured servant) in Exodus 21:1 are repeated and expanded on in Deuteronomy 15:12-18. The same occurs with the law under discussion. Gordon Wenham points out that that Deut 22:28-29 is a repetition of a law spelled out in Exodus 22:15, which states 'If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.'[13] Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the mohar or 'bride-price' to the bride’s father. A mohar was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children. What is important, however, is that we are left in no doubt that in Exodus 22:15 the case deals, not with rape, but with what was traditionally called seduction.

The third reason is that, to interpret the law in Deut 21:28-29 as a rape is to make God the commander of a morally heinous command. Martin is correct, given what we know about the psychological harm that rape inflicts upon its victims to command that a woman marry her rapist is cruel and hence clashes with strong moral intuitions. Elsewhere I have defended the claim that if one interpretation of divine commands coheres better with our moral intuitions than another then that fact constitutes evidence for the former interpretation. All else being equal, an interpretation that coheres with our pre-theoretical moral intuitions is always preferable. This hermeneutical principle applies here.

The passage then does not refer to a rape. The Hebrew word does not, by itself, indicate rape and interpreting it this way both ignores the context where the word chazak is used to designate a rape. It also makes the second law inconsistent with the exposition of the same law in Exodus 22:15 and also with our prior moral discernment about what is right and wrong. Seduction, however, is consistent with the meaning of tabas, the context it is used in, the original law it was derived from and it coheres with our moral intuitions. These factors, to me, provide decisive reasons for rejecting Martin’s interpretation.

It is worth noting that the fact that this passage refers to a seduction and not rape is really not news. Bahnsen notes that, 'one will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape;'[15] he lists several,

Meredith Kline: 'The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce' (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

Matthew Henry: '. . . if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him' (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

J. A. Thompson: 'Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).
In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).
Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of 'Seduction of a virgin,' comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed' – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

John Calvin: 'The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless' (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

J. C. Connell: 'Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry' ('Exodus,' New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).
Adam Clarke: 'This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented' (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

Alan Cole: 'If a man seduces a virgin: . . . he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses' (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).

James Jordan: 'the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)' (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: 'Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged . . .. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her' (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).[16]

Hence a skeptic who was interested in what the passage actually says could easily have discovered what I have noted by consulting a commentary.*

Medieval Commentators
If many post enlightenment and modern commentators realise that this passage is about a seduction and not a rape how does one explain the fact, alluded to above, that many medieval commentators apparently interpreted the passage to refer to rape? Here one needs to be attentive to the fact that words change their meaning over time. Medieval writers utilised a wider definition of rape than modern people do. In the middle ages the word ‘rape’ could include not only what we call rape today but also what was called 'seduction,' where a man seduces a virgin he is not married to with her consent.

Isidore De Seville, for example, stated 'seduction [stuprum], or rape, properly speaking, is unlawful intercourse, and takes its name from its causing corruption: wherefore he that is guilty of rape is a seducer.'[17] Similarly, Thomas Aquinas wrote,
They [rape and seduction] coincide when a man employs force in order unlawfully to violate a virgin. This force is employed sometimes both towards the virgin and towards her father; and sometimes towards the father and not to the virgin, for instance if she allows herself to be taken away by force from her father’s house. Again, the force employed in rape differs in another way, because sometimes a maid is taken away by force from her parents’ house, and is forcibly violated: while sometimes, though taken away by force, she is not forcibly violated, but of her own consent, whether by act of fornication or by the act of marriage: for the conditions of rape remain no matter how force is employed.[18]
Hence it is not entirely accurate to read the word 'rape' in Medieval commentaries as we understand it today.

In conclusion then, it is very doubtful that Deut 22:28-29 commands women who have been raped to marry their rapists.

Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

03-15-2012, 12:40 PM

Hey there Henry,

It's interesting that you posted that article because it was used as a defense yesterday on Facebook where we were discussing this same issue [link (http://www.facebook.com/richard.a.mcgough/posts/394013867277931)].

The article by MandM is of very poor quality. I find it entirely unconvincing. They give three reasons to reject the traditional interpretation that says it is a law about rape. Their first reason has two flaws. Here it is:

Martin cites Deut 22:28-29 as dealing with a situation where 'a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her.' He immediately states, without argument, that this refers to acts of rape. Although he does not say, it appears this conclusion is based on the verb 'seizes' in the English version he cites. Martin imports into this word the connotation of violent, coercive, abduction so that the sexual intercourse that follows is a rape. There are several problems with this claim.

First, and most obvious, the English word 'seizes' is not in The Torah. The word in The Torah is tabas; in Hebrew, tabas 'does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.'[3] While the word can refer to the capture of a city,[4] it is also used for 'handling' the harp and flute,[5] the sword,[6] a sickle,[7] a shield,[8] oars or a bow,[9] 'taking' God’s name[10] or dealing with the law of God.[11] The word simply means to 'lay hold of,' 'to take hold of something' or to 'grasp it in hand.' The more formal King James translation interprets the passage as, 'If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her.'

The first flaw is that the word tabas is supposed to be taphas. They repeated this error throughout their article. It appears neither they, nor their editors (if they have any), know enough Hebrew to notice this mistake. It immediately leaped out at me because I can read Hebrew and I am familiar with this topic.

The second flaw is much more egregious. They are trying to suggest that taphas does not have a "connotation of violent, coercive, abduction so that the sexual intercourse that follows is a rape." This is ridiculous. The same word is used in the immediately preceding chapter to refer to the FORCIBLE CAPTURE of a rebellious son who then would be dragged before the people to be STONED TO DEATH:
Deuteronomy 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him [taphas], and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Likewise, the word taphas is used in Deut 20 to speak of the forcible taking of a city in war.

Now it's true that in some contexts the word taphas could have a non-violent connotation, but there is absolutely nothing in the context of Deuteronomy 21 that suggest that to be the case. Their assertion that taphas was being used in contrast with chazak is unfounded. Scripture frequently uses synonyms, and chazak is more of a synonym than an antonym to taphas.

Their second reason is that "Deut 22:28-29 actually repeats a law which has already been laid down in the book of Exodus." This is absurd. The law in Exodus 22 says that the seduced unbetrothed virgin does not necessarily have to be given in marriage, whereas Deut 22:29 says that she must marry him and he can never divorce.

Their third reason is a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" - they said "to interpret the law in Deut 21:28-29 as a rape is to make God the commander of a morally heinous command." That's not a reason! That's not an argument! That's nothing but saying "The Bible can't mean what it says because I don't like it!"

The article serves only to confirm that the Bible does indeed contain "morally heinous commands" attributed to God.

Richard

Brother Les

03-15-2012, 02:40 PM

Twospirits

03-15-2012, 02:50 PM

Ram wrote,

Hey there Henry,

It's interesting that you posted that article because it was used as a defense yesterday on Facebook where we were discussing this same issue [link].

The article by MandM is of very poor quality. I find it entirely unconvincing.

Just wanted to note that though he (MandM) didn't mention this in his article, the phrase 'and they be found' suggests she didn't resist and consented by not crying out. I say this because of the context, it doesn't say 'and he be found' to have done this act, but 'and they be found.'

Deut.22:28-29, "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) on her, and lie with her, and they be found;---."

8610. taphas
Strong says: A primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. Seize; chiefly to capture, wield, to lay hold of.

Note that the bride-price called the 'mohar' is said to be for the protection of the woman, it was not for the father to keep as if the man was buying 'property' that belonged to the father.

Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the mohar or 'bride-price' to the bride’s father. A mohar was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children.

I now leave it to the readers :p

Twospirits

Rose

03-15-2012, 04:42 PM

Just wanted to note that though he (MandM) didn't mention this in his article, the phrase 'and they be found' suggests she didn't resist and consented by not crying out. I say this because of the context, it doesn't say 'and he be found' to have done this act, but 'and they be found.'

Deut.22:28-29, "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) on her, and lie with her, and they be found;---."

8610. taphas
Strong says: A primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. Seize; chiefly to capture, wield, to lay hold of.

Note that the bride-price called the 'mohar' is said to be for the protection of the woman, it was not for the father to keep as if the man was buying 'property' that belonged to the father.

Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the mohar or 'bride-price' to the bride’s father. A mohar was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children.

I now leave it to the readers :p

Twospirits

The mohar does not apply in the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin, because if you will notice the man who raped her is not allowed to divorce her, therefore the father would keep the money.

Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) 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 (anah), he may not put her away all his days.

Rose

Rose

03-15-2012, 04:48 PM

I have the book and it is a read that can shake one to the core, when looking at what goes on in Total War to destroy a people in more ways than one, of the mind and body, of everything. It shows the lowest elements of evil and carnal men of what they would do for their emperor/god.... sick sick sick is putting it mildly. Many times I wish that I had never read it, it has been years but I still can not get the discussed feelings of what happened there and knowing that it has happened many times over and over in history.

That is why it is so sickening to read the horrific accounts recorded in the Bible that are attributed to the commands of Yahweh. What it has proved to me is that the Bible could not have possibly been inspired by the creator of the universe.

Rose

David M

03-16-2012, 05:39 AM

The mohar does not apply in the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin, because if you will notice the man who raped her is not allowed to divorce her, therefore the father would keep the money.

Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) 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 (anah), he may not put her away all his days.

Rose

You are still resisting the obvious Rose. The man in this case cannot divorce the woman,which means a bill of divorcement can never be written. This is obviously different when a man can divorce a woman for "finding no pleasure in her" as you have been arguing elsewhere, so we do not have to make a similar comparison for making your argument against Moses and God as you have been doing elsewhere.

In neither of these two different exmaples does it not mean the wife cannot leave her husband. An earlier an exampnle in the Bible was quoted by CWH (Judges 19:2) of where a wife leaves her husband to go back to her parents.

This means that the woman could have left the man in which case, she would definitely require the dowry. If she did not need the dowry, all well and good, the money would have been passed on as inheritance money when the father died. The father in any event is not keeping it for himself and he cannot spend it as he cannot be certain his daughter would not leave her husband. Only the death of the father relieved him of his obligation to keep the money for safe-keeping; not to spend as he wished. Perhaps someone else will confirm the law of inheritance and what happen to this money at the time of the father's death and whether the money was passed down to the family or was passed to the daugther

Rose, you conclusion that the money was the father's to keep for himself is wrong.

All the best.

David

Twospirits

03-16-2012, 07:54 AM

David M wrote,

This means that the woman could have left the man in which case, she would definitely require the dowry. If she did not need the dowry, all well and good, the money would have been passed on as inheritance money when the father died. The father in any event is not keeping it for himself and he cannot spend it as he cannot be certain his daughter would not leave her husband. Only the death of the father relieved him of his obligation to keep the money for safe-keeping; not to spend as he wished. Perhaps someone else will confirm the law of inheritance and what happen to this money at the time of the father's death and whether the money was passed down to the family or was passed to the daugther

Besides divorce the man could abandon her thus the reason for the mohar. It was a security to protect the woman and the children if there were any. Thanks David, you said it much better than I could.

Twospirits

Rose

03-16-2012, 09:26 AM

You are still resisting the obvious Rose. The man in this case cannot divorce the woman,which means a bill of divorcement can never be written. This is obviously different when a man can divorce a woman for "finding no pleasure in her" as you have been arguing elsewhere, so we do not have to make a similar comparison for making your argument against Moses and God as you have been doing elsewhere.

In neither of these two different exmaples does it not mean the wife cannot leave her husband. An earlier an exampnle in the Bible was quoted by CWH (Judges 19:2) of where a wife leaves her husband to go back to her parents.

This means that the woman could have left the man in which case, she would definitely require the dowry. If she did not need the dowry, all well and good, the money would have been passed on as inheritance money when the father died. The father in any event is not keeping it for himself and he cannot spend it as he cannot be certain his daughter would not leave her husband. Only the death of the father relieved him of his obligation to keep the money for safe-keeping; not to spend as he wished. Perhaps someone else will confirm the law of inheritance and what happen to this money at the time of the father's death and whether the money was passed down to the family or was passed to the daugther

Rose, you conclusion that the money was the father's to keep for himself is wrong.

All the best.

David

It's a biblical fact David which you are not willing to admit...women cannot divorce a man! Whether or not the woman runs away does not mean she is divorced from him, unless he divorces her which he is forbidden to do in this case, so her only escape is to kill herself!

The case you quoted from Judges 19:2 is only speaking of the woman going to her fathers house for four months, the husband then goes and gets his concubine and brings her back. You need to read your Bible before you start quoting it at me.

My conclusion is no more wrong than yours, because we are speaking about something that the Bible doesn't define, so you are speculating the same as me.

Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

03-16-2012, 10:10 AM

Besides divorce the man could abandon her thus the reason for the mohar. It was a security to protect the woman and the children if there were any. Thanks David, you said it much better than I could.

Twospirits
According to this Jewish article (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Relationships/Spouses_and_Partners/About_Marriage/Ancient_Jewish_Marriage.shtml), the mohar was originally a "bride price" in the Bible, but that it evolved over time in Jewish culture to become a "divorce penalty" -

The mohar was originally the purchase price of the bride, and it is therefore understandable why it was paid by the father of the groom to the father of the bride. In ancient days, marriage was not an agreement between two individuals, but between two families.

The mohar institution was entirely transformed during late-biblical and post-biblical times. From a bridal price it finally became a lien to be paid by the husband in case of divorce, or by his heirs in case of his death.

This is a good example of how the Jews "civilized" a Biblical barbarism. We must remember that Jewish tradition is often contrary to what the Bible teaches. For example, the Jews trace their lineage through the mother, whereas the Bible traces it through the father. And for Christians, it is foolish in the extreme to appeal to Jewish customs to "correct" the Bible in light of this warning from Christ:

Mark 7:6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." 9 ¶ He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 "For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 11 "But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban" -- ' (that is, a gift to God), 12 "then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

The article also says that the "Bible does not specify what was to be done with the mohar in case the marriage agreement was broken by either of the two parties." So all the speculations about that are pointless.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-16-2012, 10:18 AM

You are still resisting the obvious Rose. The man in this case cannot divorce the woman,which means a bill of divorcement can never be written. This is obviously different when a man can divorce a woman for "finding no pleasure in her" as you have been arguing elsewhere, so we do not have to make a similar comparison for making your argument against Moses and God as you have been doing elsewhere.

In neither of these two different exmaples does it not mean the wife cannot leave her husband. An earlier an exampnle in the Bible was quoted by CWH (Judges 19:2) of where a wife leaves her husband to go back to her parents.

This means that the woman could have left the man in which case, she would definitely require the dowry. If she did not need the dowry, all well and good, the money would have been passed on as inheritance money when the father died. The father in any event is not keeping it for himself and he cannot spend it as he cannot be certain his daughter would not leave her husband. Only the death of the father relieved him of his obligation to keep the money for safe-keeping; not to spend as he wished. Perhaps someone else will confirm the law of inheritance and what happen to this money at the time of the father's death and whether the money was passed down to the family or was passed to the daugther

Rose, you conclusion that the money was the father's to keep for himself is wrong.

All the best.

David
Good morning David, :tea:

Your assertion that the woman could have left her husband is not biblical. The Bible states that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth" (Rom 7:2). Paul here is speaking of the Torah. As an aside, it is fascinating that no such law is written in the Torah, which means that Paul was drawing from some other source, probably the Jewish tradition which Christ so vehemently rejected.

Your assertion that Rose is wrong has no foundation in the Bible. It was later Jewish tradition that transformed the mohar from being a "bride price" belonging to the father into a "divorce penalty." God himself wrote a bad law that had to be "civilized" by Jewish tradition.

But all this totally misses the point anyway. The point is this: The Torah commands that the victim must marry her rapist and that he could never divorce her. Any fair judgment must agree that this is a barbaric law.

All the best,

Richard

David M

03-17-2012, 11:38 PM

Hello Rose

It's a biblical fact David which you are not willing to admit...women cannot divorce a man! Whether or not the woman runs away does not mean she is divorced from him, unless he divorces her which he is forbidden to do in this case, so her only escape is to kill herself!
You draw this conclusion; I do not.

Hello Rose

The case you quoted from Judges 19:2 is only speaking of the woman going to her fathers house for four months, the husband then goes and gets his concubine and brings her back. You need to read your Bible before you start quoting it at me.
I have read the Bible and the passage in question and that is why I am quoting it ( as it was quoted by someone else). I expect you to do the same. The man took his wife back and the matter was resolved, but what if the husband had not gone after her, would his wife have returned? We are unable to answer that question with any certainty. Had the husband not taken the initiative, we might conclude the wife would not have returned.

My conclusion is no more wrong than yours, because we are speaking about something that the Bible doesn't define, so you are speculating the same as me.

That is partly true, but you are kicking against what to many is obvious. Apart from Richard, I do not see anyone else agreeing with you. I know we both want more contributors (whatever their views). If the Bible does not define something, why be so adamant you are correct?

All the best

David

David M

03-17-2012, 11:55 PM

Hello Richard

Good morning David, :tea:
Your assertion that the woman could have left her husband is not biblical. The Bible states that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth" (Rom 7:2). Paul here is speaking of the Torah. As an aside, it is fascinating that no such law is written in the Torah, which means that Paul was drawing from some other source, probably the Jewish tradition which Christ so vehemently rejected.
I have not said the wife did not remain married to the husband, I and others have argued that this is what was set out at the beginning and Jesus confirmed, A wife leaving a husband is not free to marry again, so long as her husband is alive. This does not stop the wife leaving the husband, for which I and others have given an example.

Your assertion that Rose is wrong has no foundation in the Bible. It was later Jewish tradition that transformed the mohar from being a "bride price" belonging to the father into a "divorce penalty." God himself wrote a bad law that had to be "civilized" by Jewish tradition..
Traditions of men do tend to muddle things, but I do not see what is the bad law you are referring to.

But all this totally misses the point anyway. The point is this: The Torah commands that the victim must marry her rapist and that he could never divorce her. Any fair judgment must agree that this is a barbaric law.
It has been argued by others that the event we are considering here is not rape. You continue to say it is despite Twospirits giving you a much better understanding of the words that you use to argue your case that rape is the correct term. You are sticking to your guns no matter what, and do not even contemplate that you might be wrong. I think we have passed the point in this thread for you to continue to make this assertion.

All the best,

David

Rose

03-18-2012, 09:20 AM

Hello Rose

You draw this conclusion; I do not.

Hello Rose

I have read the Bible and the passage in question and that is why I am quoting it ( as it was quoted by someone else). I expect you to do the same. The man took his wife back and the matter was resolved, but what if the husband had not gone after her, would his wife have returned? We are unable to answer that question with any certainty. Had the husband not taken the initiative, we might conclude the wife would not have returned.

Hi David,

All we can speak of is what the Bible says, otherwise there are far too many conclusions one could come to. If the Bible doesn't address the issue of the man not going after his wife then a believer must conclude that Yahweh didn't deem it important enough to include that scenario. After all, isn't the Bible suppose to contain all a believer needs to know about God's ways?

That is partly true, but you are kicking against what to many is obvious. Apart from Richard, I do not see anyone else agreeing with you. I know we both want more contributors (whatever their views). If the Bible does not define something, why be so adamant you are correct?

All the best

David

Just because others (Christians) do not agree with me or Richard does not make our conclusions wrong. People who are stuck in religious boxes have a hard time seeing any other perspective, and they can never accuse their God of being immoral or biased!

Thanks for chatting, :D

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

03-19-2012, 09:34 AM

CWH
If you have read the book on the Rape of Nanking
I have the book and it is a read that can shake one to the core, when looking at what goes on in Total War to destroy a people in more ways than one, of the mind and body, of everything. It shows the lowest elements of evil and carnal men of what they would do for their emperor/god.... sick sick sick is putting it mildly. Many times I wish that I had never read it, it has been years but I still can not get the discussed feelings of what happened there and knowing that it has happened many times over and over in history.
It sounds like a book every Christian should read while chanting "This is the kind of thing that God ordered Israel to do. This is the kind of thing that God ordered Israel to do. This is the ..." Maybe then they would begin to understand the depth of horror attributed to God in the Bible.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-19-2012, 10:03 AM

Just wanted to note that though he (MandM) didn't mention this in his article, the phrase 'and they be found' suggests she didn't resist and consented by not crying out. I say this because of the context, it doesn't say 'and he be found' to have done this act, but 'and they be found.'

Deut.22:28-29, "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) on her, and lie with her, and they be found;---."

8610. taphas
Strong says: A primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. Seize; chiefly to capture, wield, to lay hold of.

Note that the bride-price called the 'mohar' is said to be for the protection of the woman, it was not for the father to keep as if the man was buying 'property' that belonged to the father.

Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the mohar or 'bride-price' to the bride’s father. A mohar was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children.

I now leave it to the readers :p

Twospirits
I don't see how the use of the plural proves anything. The act of sexual intercourse require two people so the plural is to be expected.

You are incorrect about the mohar. Yes it became a "protection for the women" in later Jewish tradition, but originally it was a "bride price" paid to the father who owned the bride.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-19-2012, 10:11 AM

Hello Richard

I have not said the wife did not remain married to the husband, I and others have argued that this is what was set out at the beginning and Jesus confirmed, A wife leaving a husband is not free to marry again, so long as her husband is alive. This does not stop the wife leaving the husband, for which I and others have given an example.

Good morning David,

The example you gave does not prove that women were free (under the law) to leave their husbands. It only shows that a woman did that once. The text doesn't say if her leaving was in accordance with any law in the Bible, and the fact that there is no such law is confirmed when you have to try to prove your case by appealing to a non-normative historical narrative.

Your assertion that Rose is wrong has no foundation in the Bible. It was later Jewish tradition that transformed the mohar from being a "bride price" belonging to the father into a "divorce penalty." God himself wrote a bad law that had to be "civilized" by Jewish tradition..
Traditions of men do tend to muddle things, but I do not see what is the bad law you are referring to.

The law was "bad" because it institutionalized the male ownership of women. They were treated like property that could be bought or sold. We even see this in the Tenth Commandment where women are classed along with other possessions like the cattle that you are not supposed to covet!

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour's.

See that? The women are classed along with THINGS that you are not supposed to covet. This is the OT view of women.

But all this totally misses the point anyway. The point is this: The Torah commands that the victim must marry her rapist and that he could never divorce her. Any fair judgment must agree that this is a barbaric law.
It has been argued by others that the event we are considering here is not rape. You continue to say it is despite Twospirits giving you a much better understanding of the words that you use to argue your case that rape is the correct term. You are sticking to your guns no matter what, and do not even contemplate that you might be wrong. I think we have passed the point in this thread for you to continue to make this assertion.

Yes, "it has been argued by others that the event we are considering here is not rape" but their arguments had many obvious flaws. First they didn't even get the Hebrew correct. Second, their argument that the word "taphas" did not imply a forceful taking ignored the fact that it is used in the same context to speak of forcefully taking a rebellious son to be stoned to death as well as the forceful taking of a city in war. They gave no justification for assuming a non-violent interpretation of that word in that context but merely asserted that a different word (chazach) would have been used. Third, they ended their argument with a blatant logical fallacy of "Begging the Question." Their article proved only one thing - it proves how people are willing to pervert logic in their desperate attempt to deny what the Bible plainly states. It is pathetic.

Your assertion that TwoSpirits gave "a much better understanding of the words" makes it seem like you have only one standard of truth: If something agrees with your conclusion, it is true, else it is false. It is absurd in the extreme to suggest that TwoSpirits gave a "better" (let alone "much better") interpretation. If you think my judgment is erroneous, I hope you will attempt to support your words. It gets very tedious trying to discuss serious topics when such absurd assertions are just tossed into the mix with no supporting evidence whatsoever. You have done this many times in our conversations. You frequently claim to have "answered" a point even after your "answer" was shown to be fallacious. It makes it seem like you are not really participating in these discussions. And worse, it makes it seem like you have no respect for TRUTH at all, and that is a most ironic position for a person claiming to believe in Christ.

I'm sorry for the sharp criticism, but I am treating you exactly as I want people to treat me. I got a long letter from a reader of my site the other day, and he really ripped into me from head to toe. I found his criticism extremely valuable and told him so. He was afraid he might offend me, but I gave him a hearty "thank you." I hope you received my comments in the spirit intended.

All the very best,

Richard

Twospirits

03-19-2012, 01:44 PM

I don't see how the use of the plural proves anything. The act of sexual intercourse require two people so the plural is to be expected.

You are incorrect about the mohar. Yes it became a "protection for the women" in later Jewish tradition, but originally it was a "bride price" paid to the father who owned the bride.

Not if it's rape, the man is the one solely responsible for that act of sexual intercourse, because the act was "forced" upon the woman against her will/consent. And the punishment was death as is seen in Deut. 22:25. The punishment in Deut. 22:28-29 is different indicating it was not rape as the text "and they be found" indicates; she consented and didn't resist his advances making them both responsible. Since she wasn't betrothed, and he "humbled her," he was obligated by "law" to marry her. His punishment being he could never divorce her as long as he lived.

I found some more information on the Biblical meaning of the Mohar and thought I'd post it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chabad.org%2Flibrary%2Farticl e_cdo%2Faid%2F465168%2Fjewish%2FThe-Marriage-Contract-Ketubah.htm&ei=GHtnT7jxBqnr0QGq_rmUCA&usg=AFQjCNGexU07GThgX6GBtEzbJ5Oi9icocQ&sig2=HxJNkICyfY0Xm5nUc0nX2Q

The Mohar. The funds, called mohar, are so important that this clause is called ikkar ketubah—the basic part of the ketubah, or simply the ketubah. Mohar is the cash gift the groom gives the bride, as Eliezer, Abraham's servant, gave "precious things" to Laban, Rebecca's father, and as Jacob gave seven years of service for the hand of Rachel. The great sage and the ketubah's most important author, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach, decreed that this serve as protection for the bride rather than only a gift, and ordained that the funds were not given but set aside for the bride. During marriage, therefore, it was considered a debt which was paid only in case of death or divorce, and the mohar thus became a divorce or life insurance settlement rather than a mere marriage gift. This arrangement also enabled poor grooms to marry without any immediate monetary expenditure. The Talmud provides another reason, mishum china, to give the woman a secure financial position at the time of divorce so that she may remarry, and make the trials of marriage less poignant.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myjewishlearning.com%2Flife%2 FRelationships%2FSpouses_and_Partners%2FAbout_Marr iage%2FAncient_Jewish_Marriage.shtml&ei=3H9nT8C_MYW30AHo74mXCA&usg=AFQjCNGoTQwvgrMucyIC7ERbD4tEX1Lg_g&sig2=RyTwDTJtnqm8Eopb1XOuFA

The mohar was originally the purchase price of the bride, and it is therefore understandable why it was paid by the father of the groom to the father of the bride. In ancient days, marriage was not an agreement between two individuals, but between two families.
The newly married man usually did not found a new home for himself, but occupied a nook in his father's house. The family of the groom gained, and the family of the bride lost, a valuable member who helped with all household tasks. It was reasonable, therefore, that the father of the groom should pay the father of the bride the equivalent of her value as a useful member of the family.
Yet in the course of time the mohar lost its original meaning as a purchase price paid to the father for his daughter and assumed the significance of a gift to the near relatives of the bride. As far back as in early biblical times, it was customary for a good father to give the whole of the mohar or at least a large part of it to his daughter. A father who appropriated the whole mohar for himself was considered unkind and harsh.
The portion of the mohar which the bride received from her father, and the mattan, which the groom presented to her, were not the only possessions she brought to matrimony. A rich father sometimes gave his daughter a field or other landed property as well as female slaves.

Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

03-20-2012, 09:51 PM

David M

03-28-2012, 12:55 AM

Hello Richard
On this occassion I think your conclusions are bad. When I came to this forum, you said something like; I hope you feel at home here. I was regarded as perhaps having traditional views and this forum was not traditional in its views.

As you know by now, I do not hold with traditional views of modern-day Christianity believing in the Trinity, the Devil, Satan and the nature of Jesus, the Immortal Soul etc. If my views are not the traditional views of modern-day Christians, then perhaps I am more at home here than I thought I would be. It seems I have to defend against blatant lies being put forward as truths.

You are trying to force a meaning onto the plural that is not necessarily there. It is possible I suppose, but you have presented nothing to prove your case. And it appears you have ignored the conclusions of the scholars on this point. I have found many standard commentators that all agree this passage is about rape. Can you find one published scholar who makes a good case that it was not rape? If not, you are just making up private arguments with no scholastic support, and I have no interest in disputing fringe opinions.
All the best,

Richard

I disagree with your assertions here that the passages in Deuteronomy 22 being discussed are all to do with rape. Verse 22is most obviuosly not rape. Verse 24 is rape if the damsel cries out (rape!). Where the damsel is in a city (a place where she can be heard) she must cry out. If she does not cry out, then consent has to be inferred and it is not rape.

You do not need to find a published scholars commenting on this passage to say it is not about rape, when it is so obvious. The passage is to do with intercourse, but not exclusively about rape. If you have found published scholars commenting to support your view, it just goes to show how wrong you all can be and I would have thought an intelligent person like yourself would not make such a false conclusion.

I might not agree with Twospirits on other matters, but on this one, I do not see how you can say his comments are on the fringe. By what you say; "I have no interest in disputing fringe opinions", you might as well shut this forum down now!

Will we be chatting for much longer??

David

David M

03-31-2012, 01:46 AM

I'm sorry for the sharp criticism, but I am treating you exactly as I want people to treat me. I got a long letter from a reader of my site the other day, and he really ripped into me from head to toe. I found his criticism extremely valuable and told him so. He was afraid he might offend me, but I gave him a hearty "thank you." I hope you received my comments in the spirit intended.

All the very best,

Richard

Hello Richard
Your criticism is accepted. You write a lot more than I do. I find myself reading a lot more of your posts than I reply do and I gain from both sides of the argument and I look for truth on both sides and discard that which is an obvious lie and hold in obeyance anything that is a possibility. I think we use the verses we are familiar with and maybe insert words or ignore words unintentionally to support our view. The only way, as we have agreed elsewhere, is to focus on one topic or indeed on one specfic verse and analyse it to get the most number of possible meanings. While there can be several interpretations of a verse/passage, these should all be held in obeyance before making a conclusion about a broad topic.

At the moment, with longish posts including questions, we are picking and choosing an not answering all of each others questions in the way we expect our own questions to be answered. May be this is the nature of this forum. Maybe we can get some topics going and include them in a Bible Study section. I note you have a Biblical Studies section which comes under Christianity, it might be better to have a completely separate section as a root topic. Discussing Bible topics is not always from the Christian perspective, and Jewish and language scholars could be very helpful in understanding Old Testament texts.

Maybe we can get more contributors commenting on a specific verse to get a number of interpretations. It is inevitable that this could lead to side-trails and where that begins to happen, we have to be discplined and not follow down the side-trail but stick to the point. I am not sure where to start, maybe setting up a separate section or move the Biblical Studies section out of the Christianity section to form a root section on its own.

Regards

David

Unregistered

01-17-2013, 02:25 PM

“Should a man find a virgin young woman who is not betrothed… (Deuteronomy 22:28). The precept is to punish the seducer with fifty shekels of silver. Should a man find a virgin young woman who is not betrothed - these are Israel, who, from the aspect of the Shekhinah are called ‘daughter.’ And take hold of her and lie with her, and they be found, the man lying with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty weights of silver, and she shall be his wife inasmuch as he abused her. He shall not be able to send her away all his days (ibid. 28-29). The sages and all the members of the academy say: a man - this is Israel from the aspect of the blessed Holy One [Tif'eret]. And take hold of her - with the knot of tefillin and with zizit. Who is not betrothed - an only daughter, who is the nefesh. And lie with her - with the prayer of lying down, namely הַשְׁכִּיבֵנוּ [‘cause us to lie down’]. Shall give to the young woman’s father fifty weights of silver - these are the twenty-five and twenty-five letters of the Shema” (Ra’aya Meheimna).

שקל shekel “weight of silver” and נפש nefesh “vital spirit/animal soul” לנשים “for wives” (Genesis 34:21), וְחַטָּאתוֹ “and sinned,” (2 Kings 21:17) all have a gematria (numerical coefficient) of 430.

Unregistered

01-17-2013, 03:16 PM

Rose

01-17-2013, 06:40 PM

“…As for the raped woman who does not want to marry her rapist..: it is permitted to either the woman or her father to refuse the marriage, and the rapist pays a fine and the matter is settled. If she desires [to marry the rapist] and this is also her father’s wish, they force him, and he pays a fine, as is written, and she shall be his wife and this is a prescription. Even if she is lame or blind or leprous, he is forced to marry her and can not send her out by his own will ever, as it says, and he may not put her away all his days and this is a prohibition” (Maimonides, Mishnei Torah, Hilkhot Na`ara Betula 1:3).

According to the Bible a daughter is the property of her father until she marries and then she is the property of her husband. So, if the father insists on his daughter marrying her rapist she has no choice but to obey. Also, a father may sell his daughter as a slave to whomever he wishes, as it explicitly says in the verse below.

Exo.21:7-9 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.