N
Newsy
Guest
So, you reserve the right to misinterpret scripture and then disregard it? I would disregard misinterpretation also.
- Status
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Slavery in ancient Judaism is not what we imagine today.
In Jewish society, when someone owed someone else, they were indebted to him until the debt was paid off…then they were free and no longer slaves. Then there were the relations of the Jews to non-Jews, and yes, it is quite barbaric.
Slavery, I don’t like it, was much the practice of the ancient world, and there were many levels of this practice and not like what we are used to envisioning…
Again, you have to look at the context of ancient cultures.
The past is the past. It is gone.
Better to look to today and instead see the tragedy of today’s people on the earth behaving the same as 3,000 years ago with no progress in civility and humanity.
Why are they so thick???
In Jewish society, when someone owed someone else, they were indebted to him until the debt was paid off…then they were free and no longer slaves. Then there were the relations of the Jews to non-Jews, and yes, it is quite barbaric.
Slavery, I don’t like it, was much the practice of the ancient world, and there were many levels of this practice and not like what we are used to envisioning…
Again, you have to look at the context of ancient cultures.
The past is the past. It is gone.
Better to look to today and instead see the tragedy of today’s people on the earth behaving the same as 3,000 years ago with no progress in civility and humanity.
Why are they so thick???
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Today, slavery has been rebranded … it is now called human trafficking. And it is alive and well and thriving.
I will look, but seems to me I got a letter in the mail about it just today.
So, look up on Google … human trafficking
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Verses 23/24 is not about rape. Secondly, Hebrew society was not in a modern sense very urban. A lot of noise in modern cities comes from automobiles, and we also have better sound proofing materials in our windows here in the states. I’m not talking about downtown Amman, Damascus, Jerusalem or anything like that. I’m talking about truly rural areas which would be more typical of the way the ancient Hebrew’s cities would have been.What
Do you have anything to back up this absurd claim?
Do you have any idea how little rape is reported in the Middle East (because female victims are much more likely to be punished than male perps in many areas)?
I know a mother living in Jordan who is very glad that she didn’t have any daughters (only sons) for precisely this reason (and the simple fact that the status of a woman who gives birth to sons is higher than the status of a woman who has a lot of daughters there).
To back that up, I provided a caveat of the reader referring to their own personal experience, if any, of which I claim first person knowledge in that geographical area thus providing for an eyewitness account. To do this, I am placing my proposition on the line of the readers with experience potentially calling me on it. Thus, I’m either a friggin moron who can’t think of how he is chopping his argument to pieces, or I stand by my claim and by my placing its inherent truth in the similar knowledge of others from a first person experience.
As far as modern Jordan and your related account, which borders on hearsay, the seemingly massive wave of rape mobs roaming the countryside, it’s irrelevant. As to the reason why, it’s dealing with the cultural impact of islamic doctrine and the stigmatized place it provides rape victims without consideration of the culture in the period of these laws being given.
And even that may be an allowance of the cultural norm so as to win the people.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Yes human trafficking is today’s greatest form of slavery…my state gives license to smut…and it is predictably now a site for human trafficking…the nuns are fighting it by helping these poor girls…so much needs to be done
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
That is because a man’s daughter (and wife for that matter) was considered his property.
That’s why there are Biblical rules for selling your daughter into slavery.
Exodus 21:7-11
That is because a man’s daughter (and wife for that matter) was considered his property.
That’s why there are Biblical rules for selling your daughter into slavery.
Code:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
But the Old Testament (along with the rest of the Bible) is supposed to be the inspired Word of God. According to that standard, how can anything in it be considered unfair or wrong?
Of course if its right and just, that means practices like slavery and killing rape victims (or forcing them to marry their rapists) must be considered right and just too.
However, as an atheist I reserve the right to dismiss it all as nonsense.
The O.T. does endorse practices like slavery and killing rape victims.
For example Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT:
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.
And then of course there is 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.
But the Old Testament (along with the rest of the Bible) is supposed to be the inspired Word of God. According to that standard, how can anything in it be considered unfair or wrong?
Of course if its right and just, that means practices like slavery and killing rape victims (or forcing them to marry their rapists) must be considered right and just too.
However, as an atheist I reserve the right to dismiss it all as nonsense.
How am I misinterpreting it?So, you reserve the right to misinterpret scripture and then disregard it? I would disregard misinterpretation also.
The O.T. does endorse practices like slavery and killing rape victims.
For example Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT:
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.
And then of course there is 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.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Are you trying to be funny?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbhorton
The rape one irked me.
It’s actually not about rape at all, if you go to the actual Hebrew (<<link) and earlier translations such as Douay-Rheims.
Here is the Douay Rheims-
Now, no mention of rape whatsoever. The key words here are “taking” and “humbled”. Basically, dude promised a while wide world of gold and unicorn farts and pixie dust matrimony or something equally dumb and very Romeo and Juliet. And then he knocked her up. And then it came to judgement and dude just earned himself a fornicating orgasm, a kid, and a wife. Or, just got caught.
This actually required going back to the full Hebrew:
biblos.com/deuteronomy/22-28.htm
biblos.com/deuteronomy/22-29.htm
However, the verses 23-29 are actually dealing with a number of things and must be read in the context of each other. They are NOT arbitrary laws, but dependent on circumstance.
23/24- Fornication or Prostitution. Not rape. You can’t hide screams in those tiny cities in that day. If you have ever been in the Middle East, particularly a more traditional area, there is no way to hide the screams of a rape victim or someone who was otherwise forced into something. The key thing to remember is she was married, though it was not yet consummated. Engagement was not the flippant thing it is today. It was as binding as the marriage contract. That’s why St. Joseph considered putting away Virgin Mary quietly. It would have required a divorce though they weren’t fully and totally super duper married married yet.
25/26/27- Giving woman benefit of the doubt. Particularly in a situation in the rural area where screams might not be heard in enough time to stop it, or at all.
28/29- No betrothal to break; congratulations Mr and Mrs Fornicators made Good! Ball and chain for life. This is the total single woman version of 23/24. The idea of rape is totally out of context and text entirely, once one gets rid of the piece of junk NIV and its ilk.
Quote:
Originally posted by AngryAtheist8
What
Do you have anything to back up this absurd claim?
Do you have any idea how little rape is reported in the Middle East (because female victims are much more likely to be punished than male perps in many areas)?
I know a mother living in Jordan who is very glad that she didn’t have any daughters (only sons) for precisely this reason (and the simple fact that the status of a woman who gives birth to sons is higher than the status of a woman who has a lot of daughters there).
So you are claiming that but you do not have any evidence:shrug:
Good to know
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
So what?
You have no more experience or firsthand knewledge of how those old laws were actually enforced than I do
K
kelleyclip
Guest
The entire Bible, both OT and NT, require returning to the original translation(s). Without the originals, it is too easy to get confused and misinterpret everything. And yes, The God of the OT is the God of the NT with the addition of Jesus/Yeshua the Messiah and the Holy Spirit.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
The text is quite plain.So what?
You have no more experience or firsthand knewledge of how those old laws were actually enforced than I do
Let me lay out this particular scenario step by step:
We further see this as being the case when read in contrast to the following verses:
It requires NO witnesses that this was a rape, in contrast to mohammedanism and **its **application of shariah law, which is sorta what this is- the original Jewish version.
It assumes that the woman has at some point gone and reported this rape, for it mentions nothing of witnesses. Thus, it’s not like they were discovered, because then it would be known for sure. It assumes no one would conceivably hear her cries for help. But, in the city instance, it assumes the ability to be heard.
I peppered in my own observations from time in the middle east, in areas which would mimic Hebrew society and their architecture and building materials. I further put forth my claim on the veracity of others having this same experience. Therefore, as I stated, the evidence is put forth on the friggin internet, on a forum which has people from all over the world, including the middle east. This allows my claim to be put forth to the scrutiny of others with firsthand experience in such areas. What you have done, however, is deny my own personal knowledge as an indication of the way I expand on the text. The text itself, when read in context, is very, very clear. Particularly when one goes back through the progression of the English translation and starts looking at the Douay-Rheims, the Vulgate, and then the Hebrew. My own observation of how hard it is to conceal loud screaming, in areas which would more closely resemble the urban design of that day, and the materials of that day, merely provides someone with more of a basis to understand what is already understandable with a little mental figuring.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
The only real contest to the way I’ve extrapolated the information is modern translation which inserts the word rape, where rape was never understood before. Nor is it understood now by modern Jews, and the Hebrew text itself gives no credence to such a claim. It’s defining rape in one regard, but, it’s also putting forth the evidence for such a claim to begin with. What it is really doing is outlining the situations in which sexual promiscuity might result in a rape claim which had weight, as it does today. It’s outlining the fairest way to approach such a case. It has very little application today, if any. It is not something which Gentiles were ever expected to follow or know. One could not be a Gentile-Jew who did all the stuff they wanted to, but not be Jewish. If you wanted to observe the grace bestowed on the Jewish people, you became JEWISH. Circumcision and everything. You forsook ALL previous attachments to the Gentile world, which were not permissible for a Jew at the time. These laws are not even applicable to Christians today, as per baptism replacing circumcision and being ethnic Gentiles, and fulfilled in Christ, have no need for such petty things.
It seems to be quite forgotten that these laws are civil laws, which have spiritual weight, given that they were built on the consistent refusal of the people to just love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, and mind. They had to keep pushing the envelope. Always wanted, or ended up needing, legal framework, and then they find loopholes in that. It culminated in the Pharisees who let the law become their god instead of God helping them obey the law, which, frankly, is virtually impossible outside of loving God enough to do so. We see throughout scripture that everyone was good to go, as long as they constantly sought after God. The second they got personal designs in mind, it all went to hell in a hand basket.
If anything, the complexity of our legal framework today is an indication on how screwed up society is, more so than our blindly thought state of “advancement”.
That you read the law looking for loopholes to condemn the law, indicates a desire to live outside the law, having declared yourself morally superior to it, for it is false by your evidence. But this only further places you away from being able to even condemn the law, because it is exactly the opposite mindset one must have for understanding the law.
It’s the same mentality which leads to obnoxiously stupid questions like “Why did God let Hitler do what he did?” Well, why the heck did Hitler have to act on such lunatic ideas inside his free will?
It’s as absurd as “Well, what if the people in the city didn’t hear the screams?”. Obviously the law was given in an environment where this would be impossible. This aspect of the law would have absolutely zero situational applicability in say, modern NYC.
That clear enough for you?
It seems to be quite forgotten that these laws are civil laws, which have spiritual weight, given that they were built on the consistent refusal of the people to just love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, and mind. They had to keep pushing the envelope. Always wanted, or ended up needing, legal framework, and then they find loopholes in that. It culminated in the Pharisees who let the law become their god instead of God helping them obey the law, which, frankly, is virtually impossible outside of loving God enough to do so. We see throughout scripture that everyone was good to go, as long as they constantly sought after God. The second they got personal designs in mind, it all went to hell in a hand basket.
If anything, the complexity of our legal framework today is an indication on how screwed up society is, more so than our blindly thought state of “advancement”.
That you read the law looking for loopholes to condemn the law, indicates a desire to live outside the law, having declared yourself morally superior to it, for it is false by your evidence. But this only further places you away from being able to even condemn the law, because it is exactly the opposite mindset one must have for understanding the law.
It’s the same mentality which leads to obnoxiously stupid questions like “Why did God let Hitler do what he did?” Well, why the heck did Hitler have to act on such lunatic ideas inside his free will?
It’s as absurd as “Well, what if the people in the city didn’t hear the screams?”. Obviously the law was given in an environment where this would be impossible. This aspect of the law would have absolutely zero situational applicability in say, modern NYC.
That clear enough for you?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
You seem to be looking to be some sort of idealized version of the Kingdom of Israel and its people when replying to me. I would like to remind you that the ancient Israelites allowed slavemasters to beat their slaves up to (but not beyond) the point where they were on the verge of dying immediately (here’s the relevant Biblical verse):
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Exodus 21:20-21
In such a brutal society, even if we assume that* individual *cries of pain could always be heard (a very big assumption to make, especially considering how common brutal corporal punishment is in slaveholding societies) why should we assume that people in such a society would rush to the aid of a woman in distress?
Is it not more likely that they would consider the sound of an unknown woman screaming in pain or pleading for help none of their business?
As you have said before, we can learn a great deal about how ancient Israelites lived by observing how modern Muslims in the Middle East live, and the such Muslims are not known for their sympathy and understanding towards victims of rape (they are actually noted for the reverse).
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I am not looking for the loopholes.
I think the law about killing women who have unlawful sex in the city is bad on the face of it, and if it was actually enforced probably led to the death of many rape victims.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Why would that be impossible?
Large groups of people more or less always make a lot of noise, especially in crowded public areas like a marketplace:shrug:
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
And what mindset is that? Assuming the ancient Jews were much nicer than their own words (i.e. the Old Testament) indicates. Is that the *correct *mindset?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
You know, the more I read your interpretation of this particular Biblical law (highlighted for the reader’s convenience) the more it bothers me.
Aside from assuming that if the woman cried out she could be heard (and her cries would be heeded) it also assumes the woman could cry out.
But why should we assume that?
Real modern rapists often keep their victims quiet while abusing them by knocking them out, gagging them, threatening them with violence if they make a noise, etc.
And we have no reason to assume that rapists in ancient Israel would not be cunning or brutal enough to do this.
- Status