"Rape" in the Bible

[POI]

The current definition of "rape" would <include> a lack of, or complete absence of, consent. The current definition of "consent" would involve permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Alternatively, where women are concerned (in the Bible), I do not recall a woman's consent to be deemed necessary or required? Biblical Hebrew did not have a single legal or technical term that exactly corresponds to the current understanding for the term "rape", which nowadays focuses more-so on a lack of consent in various forms. Such forms involving lack of consent would include: fear - (as a lack of a verbal "no" is not necessarily consent, especially if the person is afraid to resist verbally or physically due to a specific set of circumstances), age - (as it relates to an age of true accountability), slumber - (as it relates to advancement while their partner is asleep), unconsciousness, intoxication, etc... You get the gist... The Hebrew Bible uses several different verbs and descriptive phrases to refer to "forced sexual assault", but not the modern definition of "rape". The Biblical concept of sexual violation was viewed primarily through the lens of family honor, economic consequences, and/or social disgrace, but not the woman's violation of autonomy?

Today, it is mere common knowledge that if a woman does not grant consent to sex, (as explained above), it most certainly can be considered "rape".

I trust we can all reference the Biblical verse(s) which would be deemed (condoned 'rape') in the modern world? Such situational 'rape' would include 1) the spoils of war and/or 2) the bonds of "marriage" as it directly relates to the spoils of war and/or even maybe without. In essence, as stated above, commanded Biblical circumstances existed where a lack of a verbal 'no' does not necessarily grant consent.

For debate:

1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?
2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?
3. How do Christians today appeal to the statement, "rape is wrong", when the Bible itself does not directly express its direct abolition, but instead looks to (condone/permit) 'rape'?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #39]

It is not saying if he rapes her but if he seduces her.

I'm using the NRSVA --> "25 But if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die".

But it matters not regardless. The original language had no direct word for "rape". This is one of the reasons I placed the word in quotes. The larger question becomes, what actually counts as rape? Well, I answered that in the OP, for which you have completely skipped. The Bible supports certain kinds of 'rape.'

25–27 >> ḥazaq = overpower, violent force. Treated like murder. Man dies. Woman has zero blame. 28–29 >> taphas = seize, take hold, often used for seduction, not assault.If the text meant violent rape again, it would reuse ḥazaq. It doesn’t. It’s addressing premarital sex that bypasses the father’s authority, not violent assault. Marriage here is a penalty, not a prize. The man pays the maximum bride-price. He loses the right to divorce. He is legally bound for life. In that culture, that removes his freedom. No man wanted that outcome. If this were a rape loophole, it's the dumbest loophole.

Again, please tell me where her consent is necessary or required? Again, please read the OP in it's entirety, as I'm growing tired of having to re-explain common sense. Your apologetics is growing tiresome, and no one is buying it.

Love others as yourself does apply everywhere. The reason Jesus and the apostles still told people what not to do is because those were the things they were doing. He was correcting their errors. They were not raping, so no need to bring it up.

LOL! This is because Jesus did not consider these described actions, from the Torah, as acts of 'rape.' Marrying your seized victim and/or taking war brides was a-okay in their eyes. But we know better now. Jesus did not.

[RBD]

Your purposed effort to read rape into every case in Deut 22, is only so you can change the law into one of forced marriage by forced rape. The law of Moses does not allow a man to rape a woman, so the man could force the raped woman to marry him.

Your effort to change the law of Moses into a rape-marriage law, is an insult to standard grammar and grade school reading comprehension.

You might need to improve your own reading comprehension from grade school to at least middle school. Deuteronomy 22:28 explicitly says that the man seized the virgin girl. Every time that word (תפשׂ) is used of a human being, it means that the person is taken by force against their will. It's used of militaries taking cities or prisoners and of authorities taking criminals to be punished. The translators of the Septuagint agreed, rendering the sentiment as βιασάμενος κοιμηθῇ μετ᾿ αὐτῆς, "forced her to sleep with him." The interesting thing about the Greek is that it further emphasizes her lack of agency. The word translated "sleep" there is actually in the passive voice. Literally, he "forced her to be slept with him." In Hebrew, the man does the seizing and lying. In Greek, he does the forcing and "sleeping" with. The young woman or girl has no say in the matter, but is just raped and married off to the rapist.

This isn't reading comprehension, but now the standard tact of word manipulation for a desired outcome.

The word is also used for handling a music instrument. Closer to the point, Potiphar's wife took hold of Joseph's garment, and He refused her advances. Which in this case the woman does not refuse.

Cases of all sorts are judged in Deut 22, including that of people and animals. With man and woman there are cases:
1. Newlyweds after consummation
2. Adultery
3. Rape
4. Unmarried man and woman.

They are the standard cases between men and women, excluding homosexuality.

[RBD]

.


I do not understand the confusion of the subject of rape in the Bible or why anyone would promote the untruthful idea that " RAPE " is unmentioned or condoned in the Bible.

Deu 22:25 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:

Deu 22:26 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 neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

the punishment for RAPE - is the DEATH penalty, According to the Bible..

If there was no proof of rape, then the man who had sex with the woman who accused Him of rape was that the man was to PROVIDE FINANTUAL SUPPORT to the woman for the rest of His life - just for seducing her.

If, a woman is sexually assaulted in the Bible - the BIBLICAL LAW DEMANDS that the Rapist financially supports the woman He rapes - even if she does not want to marry Him.

And if she is truly raped and unwilling of her own free will, - then obviously, she will never marry the man and the Bible suggests that He work for the rest of His life to support the victim or be put to death.

As similar to a marriage contract - He SUPPORTS and PROVIDES SUPPORT for the rest of His life.

A mandatory lawsuit / full automatic death penalty --- or fanatical retribution

In the Bible - The rapists and the slave traders, kidnappers and pedophiles are to be - put to death. Mandatory death,

And If a woman is forced into sexual intercourse and not completely complicit but slightly resisted at the start - but gave in and encouraged and proceeded to participate and REFUSED TO HAVE THE WILL TO SAY NO - AND --- FAILED TO RESIST - and - it is not a violent rape- the woman STILL MUST be supported and the father can decide if His daughter was forced and has to get married.

In the Bible days, The Jews following their God did not intend for things to be any more barbaric, wild or evil or insane than honorable American citizens do today.

Please do not pretend that the Bible is not able to be rationalized and understood by people who actually take the time to study and examine it in full details.

when we are making legal judgment upon men who are to receive a full automatic death penalty for rape - AS THE BIBLE DEMANDS CAPITAL PUNISHMNENT FOR RAPE

how is it truthful or honest to take what the rest of the bible says about rape and punishment and pretend that rape is condoned or not dealt with - the punishment for rape is death, there are other degrees of rape that do not involve coercion or force of overpowering someone or using physical violence

all of these other forms of rape that are not inflicted upon women where rape or sex ensues with no using of coercion or force of overpowering them by physical violence - - these cases are to be judged with a mandatory fanatical lawsuit that the Bible demands the man must pay the woman

the passages are explaining that - outside of brute force rape which demands a death penalty
all other instances where sex occurs by consent or partial consent -

THE MAN IS STILL RESPONSIBLE AND OWES THE WOMAN FINANTUAL COMPENSATION OR MARRIAGE ARANGMENTS MUST BE MADE -

In reality, rather than the law of Moses condoning rape-marriages, the iron law makes it impossible for the rape victim to plead for the rapist, and save him from death.

Once the rape occurs, and the man is found guilty, he is to be put to death. Period. No appeals for him. It's the lax societies of today that try to impute their own failed standards upon the Bible...

And some hypocrites try to make it look like they condemn it, when they themselves wouldn't have the right character to cast a stone at the rapist...

[RBD]

if there are no witnesses and no evidence whatsoever can prove a woman was raped by force, the man is still responsible and must marry the woman or pay a costly amount of money.

Your apologetic is false. It's confirms the false charge applied to the law of Moses: A rape victim, which is no more a virgin, must now marry the rapist, if he is not caught in the act. That's the lie.

In the case of rape, nothing is said of being found in the act. The rapist must die. The only case of rape is with strong force, and the rapist must be put to death. No appeals allowed, including from the rape victim. Rape-marriage is forbidden by law of Moses. If the law is executed rightly, then the dead man can't marry anyone.

The whole charge is just another false accusation against the Bible, by the usual suspects playing their word games against basic reading and good sense:

1Ti 6:3
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

[RBD]

[Replying to POI in post #39]

It is not saying if he rapes her but if he seduces her.

25–27 >> ḥazaq = overpower, violent force. Treated like murder. Man dies. Woman has zero blame. 28–29 >> taphas = seize, take hold, often used for seduction, not assault.If the text meant violent rape again, it would reuse ḥazaq. It doesn’t. It’s addressing premarital sex that bypasses the father’s authority, not violent assault. Marriage here is a penalty, not a prize. The man pays the maximum bride-price. He loses the right to divorce. He is legally bound for life. In that culture, that removes his freedom. No man wanted that outcome. If this were a rape loophole, it's the dumbest loophole.

All this of course was understood by the Israelites of the day, who knew their own language. And can still be easily understood by translation.

Here's the lying accusation stripped of all the rubbish wording:

That there are two cases of rape, where the rapist dies, or is forced to marry the victim. As you well say, Marriage here is a penalty, not a prize. And the penalty is only upon the man, not the woman, who is not being forced to marry. The woman can refuse.

Absurdity #1: The rapist therefore has a choice? Die or marry? (Who would want to rape a woman, who would rather die then marry her?)

Absurdity #2: If the rapist is not found in the act, and there was none to save her. He must die. Only if the rapist is found in the act, and the woman is saved, he must marry her or die.

So, if not found, the rapist is put to death without appeal. But if found, then she is forced to marry him?!

It's nothing but another false charge against the Bible by usual long-winded word manipulation, to support a seditious accusation and outcome, by people who show no sense, while claiming outraged innocence in the matter.

1Ti 6:3
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

If all responses to the dysfunctional charge were with common reading sense as yours, without getting caught up in all the pseudo-word study, then the argument would have ended with one simple conclusion:

A rapist that is not caught in the act must be killed. A rapist that is caught in the act must marry. If the woman is not saved, the rapist must be killed. If the woman is saved, she must marry the rapist: "Please O LORD, don't let anyone save me from this rapist pig!!"

Seriously. Such twisted devilish thinking would have rape victims shut their mouths, and submit to the rape, so that they won't have to be raped over and over in rape-marriage. It's an unusually contemptible and evil false charge against the Bible. What kind of psychopath would argue such a thing?

Jde 1:14
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

[Face to face]

[/quote]
In reality, rather than the law of Moses condoning rape-marriages, the iron law makes it impossible for the rape victim to plead for the rapist, and save him from death.

Once the rape occurs, and the man is found guilty, he is to be put to death. Period. No appeals for him. It's the lax societies of today that try to impute their own failed standards upon the Bible...

[/quote]


this is simply because this particular passage deals with a man raping an engaged or married woman, it was rape and the woman was forced - the man is given a full automatic death sentence

that is the example they were to follow, all other forms of rape are subject to penalties, fines and extreme lifelong fanatical loss .


the man rapes a virgin who is not married or engaged - keep the man alive, let him work for the rest of his life to repay

the man rapes an engaged or married woman - kill the useless rapist

the bible is very clear and perfect.

[Difflugia]

Your purposed effort to read rape into every case in Deut 22, is only so you can change the law into one of forced marriage by forced rape. The law of Moses does not allow a man to rape a woman, so the man could force the raped woman to marry him.

Your effort to change the law of Moses into a rape-marriage law, is an insult to standard grammar and grade school reading comprehension.

You might need to improve your own reading comprehension from grade school to at least middle school. Deuteronomy 22:28 explicitly says that the man seized the virgin girl. Every time that word (תפשׂ) is used of a human being, it means that the person is taken by force against their will. It's used of militaries taking cities or prisoners and of authorities taking criminals to be punished. The translators of the Septuagint agreed, rendering the sentiment as βιασάμενος κοιμηθῇ μετ᾿ αὐτῆς, "forced her to sleep with him." The interesting thing about the Greek is that it further emphasizes her lack of agency. The word translated "sleep" there is actually in the passive voice. Literally, he "forced her to be slept with him." In Hebrew, the man does the seizing and lying. In Greek, he does the forcing and "sleeping" with. The young woman or girl has no say in the matter, but is just raped and married off to the rapist.

This isn't reading comprehension, but now the standard tact of word manipulation for a desired outcome.

Projecting a little? Authors want to be understood and since language is shared, they'll typically use language in similar ways to other authors. Your argument is that the authors of Deuteronomy used Hebrew differently than other Old Testament authors in order to justify what you want them to be saying.

The word is also used for handling a music instrument.

A musical instrument isn't a person.

Closer to the point, Potiphar's wife took hold of Joseph's garment, and He refused her advances.

A garment isn't a person.

Which in this case the woman does not refuse.

The woman's a person; the seizing is against her will, so she has no agency to refuse.

Cases of all sorts are judged in Deut 22, including that of people and animals. With man and woman there are cases:
1. Newlyweds after consummation
2. Adultery
3. Rape
4. Unmarried man and woman.

And which of these cases involve תפשׂ of a human being?

[Face to face]

.


i have seen comments around the internet regarding rape in dealing with - Jdg 20

such as ........ . . "" Go to a party and hide. When the women comes out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife, ""




but lets read the facts


WHY MAKE THIS CLAIM REGARDING - Jdg 20:47

the passage is dealing with a MASSIVE war that broke out between Benjamin and the rest of Israel because of a woman of Israel was raped and murdered

all of the other tribes of Israel made war against the tribe of Benjamin to punish the rapist

AFTER THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN WAS COMPLETELY DEFEATED BY THE REST OF ISRAEL

:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.


The truth is that this is not a " party :

this was an event where a religious feast ceremony was taking place and the four hundred young virgins were prisoners of war who lived a city that was completely destroyed by Israel because the city was protecting men who had raped a woman


:47 Also says - That six hundred men of Benjamin had survived the war . So Israel wanted to continue the inheritance and future generations of the tribe of Benjamin.
And they are now prisoners of war - captives of war.

And the city of Jabesh Gilead located just a few miles south of Gibeah -


So now - the city of Jabesh Gilead is also taken as captives and prisoners and they remove the 400 virgins out of the city that is filled with the protectors of criminals and rapists

And Israel takes the female prisoners that they believe that can salvage into a clean environment Godly family atmosphere and they place these women prisoners together with other prisoner males
\
\ and the female virgins are out of all of the captive war prisoners.


– meaning - from the two cities where they believe the savage rapist’s and murderers were hiding in and being protected

So there 200 prisoner of war, captive men surviving - who did not have a wife - they take the female prisoners and provide them with a family and husband from the men of Benjamin.


basically in Jdg 20

the entire Tribe of Benjamin is protecting a group of men in a gentile city who had raped and killed a Jewish woman

all of the other tribes make war against the tribe of Benjamin and completely destroy the entire city in order to bring the rapists to justice.

there are a number of female prisoners of war both men and women who are left alive in the city -

the men and women prisoners of war are first separated

but then Israel decides a plan to wait till the women are gathered out away from the evil rapist city and then take the innocent virgin women out and give them a marriage plan


i understand that many people may not believe this story to be real but i ask that we at least look at the context of the story that is presented in the passage and how Israel dealt with the rape of a women - in order to bring the group of men to justice all of Israel completely destroyed an entire city killing hundreds of men who were protecting the rapists

- there were prisoners of war who were innocent virgin women, Israel waits till these women are gathered outside of the destroyed city and takes them into their nation.

this is how God sees justice and honor - the alternative would be to leave the young virgin women to live in a city that condones and promotes and protects rape and murder of innocent women


the God of the Bible leads the reader to believe that it was best to remove the virgin women out of the city that protects and promotes rape of women - and bring them into Israel ..

IF WE READ THE CONTEXT FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS WE FIND THAT THERE SIMPLY ARE NO MANUSCRIPS THAT PROMOTE RAPE AND ABUSE OF WOMEN.

[RBD]

In reality, rather than the law of Moses condoning rape-marriages, the iron law makes it impossible for the rape victim to plead for the rapist, and save him from death.

Once the rape occurs, and the man is found guilty, he is to be put to death. Period. No appeals for him. It's the lax societies of today that try to impute their own failed standards upon the Bible...


this is simply because this particular passage deals with a man raping an engaged or married woman, it was rape and the woman was forced - the man is given a full automatic death sentence

False. The death penalty is already for having any sex with the engage/married woman: they both die.

Deu 22:25
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:

Damsel is used for any young woman. This is why the next case is only for an unengaged/unmarried virgin damsel.

The man that rapes a woman is put to death without appeal. If the woman is engaged/married, she is innocent.

that is the example they were to follow, all other forms of rape are subject to penalties, fines and extreme lifelong fanatical loss .

Quote Bible, if you're going to comment on Bible.

Otherwise, other books and their perverted rape rules have no place.

the bible is very clear and perfect.

True. But your confused version of it isn't.

[RBD]

The word is also used for handling a music instrument.

A musical instrument isn't a person.

Gen 39:12
And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.

Neither is a garment a person is wearing, but it's not dominating force. Both men and women make strong advances on the other, which can be resisted or submitted to. It's not a romantic request, but certainly not rape. There is a way of escape, or submission.

You're personal rape-marriage law is for devilish heathen, not the people of God.

Closer to the point, Potiphar's wife took hold of Joseph's garment, and He refused her advances.

A garment isn't a person.[/quote]

And you're not a serious person. It's what happens to unhinged fault-finders.

"She didn't lay her hands on me. But only only my garment, so I left it with her, since she wanted it so badly...And if she is so enamored for another of my garment's, she can have that one too."