To Those Who Think Adulterers, Homosexuals, Fornicators etc...

[Arthur Brain]

You might be misunderstanding. She is not married so she has been seized and humbled. Not sex after marriage as it should be. The humbled part has to do with her having been seized instead of married which she could enjoy the right way. So he has to pay her father a penalty for not going about it the right way if it would be called a penalty. He found her not married and seized her. But afterward she is humbled.

How would you define "seized"? Cos that smacks of force.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure. It means to lay hold of.

Here's what Strong's says:

Strong's h8610 - Lexical: תָּפַשׂ - Transliteration: taphas - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: taw-fas' - Definition: seized. - Origin: A primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. Seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably. - Usage: catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, X surely, surprise, take. - Translated as (count): and took (6), and he shall be taken (2), And he took (2), and lay hold (2), be taken (2), handle (2), he was taken (2), Take (2), take them (2), took (2), you have taken (2), And caught (1), and handles (1), and him who handles (1), And I took (1), And she caught him (1), and surprised (1), and take (1), and take him (1), And they took (1), And they took them (1), and they who handle (1), and we shall catch them (1), are stopped (1), are surprised (1), caught (1), I may take (1), it to take it (1), laid over (1), Lay hold him (1), let them be taken (1), of the taking (1), of them handling (1), shall be taken (1), shall surely (1), shall take hold (1), so they took (1), takes hold (1), that handle (1), that hold (1), that it may be handled (1), that they may be taken (1), Then they took (1), they took (1), those who play (1), those who took (1), to hold (1), to seize (1), When they took hold (1), you shall be taken (1).

The passage is describing a man captivating a woman, and having sex with her (where she is a willing participant and not married or betrothed).

"To Capture, to use unwarrantably".

lain:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Again, no help in context.

Good grief, Arty. Do you not even bother to study what God's word says?

The word is "defile."

Strong's h6031 - Lexical: עָנָה - Transliteration: anah - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: aw-naw' - Definition: defile. - Origin: A primitive root (possibly rather ident. With anah through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows). - Usage: abase self, afflict(-ion, self), answer (by mistake for anah), chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, sing (by mistake for anah), speak (by mistake for anah), submit self, weaken, X in any wise. - Translated as (count): afflict (4), and you shall afflict (4), to afflict (4), was afflicted (3), and afflicted (2), and shall afflict (2), do afflict (2), he has humbled (2), to be exercised (2), you afflict (2), you shall afflict (2), abase (1), afflicted (1), and afflict (1), and afflict them (1), and afflict us (1), and afflicted them (1), and afflicted us (1), and dealt so harshly (1), and defile (1), and defiled her (1), And he humbled (1), and humble you (1), and submit (1), and they shall afflict (1), and Though I have afflicted (1), and to chasten yourself (1), and You have afflicted (1), answers (1), are afflicted (1), be afflicted (1), do I will afflict (1), force me (1), forced her (1), have they forced (1), have we afflicted (1), he had forced (1), he might humble you (1), He weakened (1), his afflictions (1), humble (1), I am afflicted (1), I been afflicted (1), I humbled (1), in any way (1), in you has humbled (1), in you have they humbled (1), Leannoth (1), of those who afflicted (1), that afflict (1), that he forced (1), that we might afflict ourselves (1), the afflicted (1), they afflicted (1), they hurt (1), They ravished (1), they were afflicted (1), they were troubled (1), to humble (1), to humble yourself (1), you do afflict (1), You have afflicted (1), you have afflicted me (1), you have been afflicted (1), you have humbled (1).

By raping a woman, or fornicating with her, or committing adultery with her, a man defiles her, especially in the eyes of God.

That's what it means for a woman to be humbled in this context.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure. It means to lay hold of.

Here's what Strong's says:

Strong's h8610 - Lexical: תָּפַשׂ - Transliteration: taphas - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: taw-fas' - Definition: seized. - Origin: A primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. Seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably. - Usage: catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, X surely, surprise, take. - Translated as (count): and took (6), and he shall be taken (2), And he took (2), and lay hold (2), be taken (2), handle (2), he was taken (2), Take (2), take them (2), took (2), you have taken (2), And caught (1), and handles (1), and him who handles (1), And I took (1), And she caught him (1), and surprised (1), and take (1), and take him (1), And they took (1), And they took them (1), and they who handle (1), and we shall catch them (1), are stopped (1), are surprised (1), caught (1), I may take (1), it to take it (1), laid over (1), Lay hold him (1), let them be taken (1), of the taking (1), of them handling (1), shall be taken (1), shall surely (1), shall take hold (1), so they took (1), takes hold (1), that handle (1), that hold (1), that it may be handled (1), that they may be taken (1), Then they took (1), they took (1), those who play (1), those who took (1), to hold (1), to seize (1), When they took hold (1), you shall be taken (1).

The passage is describing a man captivating a woman, and having sex with her (where she is a willing participant and not married or betrothed).

Oh, and let's just concede that there are going to be two willing participants in this "seizure/capture" often enough. What about the ones where the woman has had sex forced on her. How are you going to determine the difference via OT law? Do tell...

 

[JudgeRightly]

How would you define "seized"? Cos that smacks of force.

Captivating an audience is force? "can I have your attention, please" is force?

Tell me Arty, do you interpret everything in the Bible to the extreme so you can mock it? Or are you just that ignorant of what words mean?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Good grief, Arty. Do you not even bother to study what God's word says?

The word is "defile."

Strong's h6031 - Lexical: עָנָה - Transliteration: anah - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: aw-naw' - Definition: defile. - Origin: A primitive root (possibly rather ident. With anah through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows). - Usage: abase self, afflict(-ion, self), answer (by mistake for anah), chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, sing (by mistake for anah), speak (by mistake for anah), submit self, weaken, X in any wise. - Translated as (count): afflict (4), and you shall afflict (4), to afflict (4), was afflicted (3), and afflicted (2), and shall afflict (2), do afflict (2), he has humbled (2), to be exercised (2), you afflict (2), you shall afflict (2), abase (1), afflicted (1), and afflict (1), and afflict them (1), and afflict us (1), and afflicted them (1), and afflicted us (1), and dealt so harshly (1), and defile (1), and defiled her (1), And he humbled (1), and humble you (1), and submit (1), and they shall afflict (1), and Though I have afflicted (1), and to chasten yourself (1), and You have afflicted (1), answers (1), are afflicted (1), be afflicted (1), do I will afflict (1), force me (1), forced her (1), have they forced (1), have we afflicted (1), he had forced (1), he might humble you (1), He weakened (1), his afflictions (1), humble (1), I am afflicted (1), I been afflicted (1), I humbled (1), in any way (1), in you has humbled (1), in you have they humbled (1), Leannoth (1), of those who afflicted (1), that afflict (1), that he forced (1), that we might afflict ourselves (1), the afflicted (1), they afflicted (1), they hurt (1), They ravished (1), they were afflicted (1), they were troubled (1), to humble (1), to humble yourself (1), you do afflict (1), You have afflicted (1), you have afflicted me (1), you have been afflicted (1), you have humbled (1).

By raping a woman, or fornicating with her, or committing adultery with her, a man defiles her, especially in the eyes of God.

That's what it means for a woman to be humbled in this context.

What, and she has to pay the penalty for being married to the guy?! That's what you advocate on here among other things...

:freak:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Captivating an audience is force? "can I have your attention, please" is force?

Tell me Arty, do you interpret everything in the Bible to the extreme so you can mock it? Or are you just that ignorant of what words mean?

Dude, if you need the difference explained to you regarding the physical and metaphorical then this convo isn't going anywhere fast...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, and let's just concede that there are going to be two willing participants in this "seizure/capture" often enough.

I mean, it literally says, "AND THEY ARE FOUND OUT"...

:mock: "it's obvious" :mock:

What about the ones where the woman has had sex forced on her.

Well that's when you put the rapist (because that's what he is) to death.

How are you going to determine the difference via OT law? Do tell...

Try reading your Bible, it'll help.

Or do you even have a Bible?

 

[Jacob]

How would you define "seized"? Cos that smacks of force.

It means that he seized her. She is unmarried. Not engaged or betrothed. He must have used some kind of force, but I do not know if she is a willing participant. Force used would not be good. Her not being married might have something to do with it, even her being seized.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I mean, it literally says, "AND THEY ARE FOUND OUT"...

:mock: "it's obvious" :mock:



Well that's when you put the rapist (because that's what he is) to death.



Try reading your Bible, it'll help.

Or do you even have a Bible?

How about you just explain how it can be determined that such cases can be construed as consensual or forced via your proposals for society? Aka the whole no need for concrete proof but two to three witnesses etc?

Or just carry on with your kiddy emoticons...

 

[JudgeRightly]

How about you just explain how it can be determined that such cases can be construed as consensual or forced via your proposals for society? Aka the whole no need for concrete proof but two to three witnesses etc?

Or just carry on with your kiddy emoticons...

I'll go through the last few posts more thoroughly tomorrow.

Right now, I'm getting ready for bed.

 

[ok doser]

artie whines:

....no need for concrete ....

JR tolerantly and patiently responds:

Right now, I'm getting ready for bed.

i just mixed and poured seven bags of concrete and am going back out to cover the pours with plastic and clean up my tools, so i can fully sympathize with your unwillingness to address the idiocy upon which this thread is predicated :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

Good grief, Arty. Do you not even bother to study what God's word says?

no, he doesn't

Tell me Arty, do you interpret everything in the Bible to the extreme so you can mock it? Or are you just that ignorant of what words mean?

both

 

[joeyarnoldvn]

I think you'll find, if you were to actually do ANY decent amount of study on how women were treated in the Bible, that God values women far higher than you do.

Didn't Jacob work for 14 years for the right to marry Rachel? That means women are truly honored above and beyond the call of duty.

 

[Crucifer]

“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. - Exodus 22:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:16-17&version=NKJV

“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,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. - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:28-29&version=NKJV

Exodus and Deuteronomy are saying the same thing, the father is just lost in the context of the latter. The father would never give his daughter over to her rapist and those fifty shekels were the compensation either in refusal or in bride-price.
The reason the father was given an option nonetheless was so in the event that an otherwise unwanted or poor woman was taken by a wealthy man she could maybe go on and carry on her father's name in in higher legacy.

‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus20:10&version=NKJV

1000's of years ago that was maybe a bit more appropriate.
To do it now is just dumb and unnecessary. There's a reason why we stopped doing that a very, very long time ago and it wasn't because we were 'against God'.
Also
"Let he without sin cast the first stone" was Jesus' response to people dragging a woman to be stoned for it. You're just abusing the concept of the Law to be hostile to others.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Exodus and Deuteronomy are saying the same thing, the father is just lost in the context of the latter. The father would never give his daughter over to her rapist and those fifty shekels were the compensation either in refusal or in bride-price.
The reason the father was given an option nonetheless was so in the event that an otherwise unwanted or poor woman was taken by a wealthy man she could maybe go on and carry on her father's name in in higher legacy.

You're correct that those two passages are saying the same thing...

But neither of them have anything to do with rape.

If you would have read in Deuteronomy 22:25-27, you would know that, as rape is specifically mentioned in those three verses, separate from 28-29.

1000's of years ago that was maybe a bit more appropriate.
To do it now is just dumb and unnecessary. There's a reason why we stopped doing that a very, very long time ago and it wasn't because we were 'against God'.
Also
"Let he without sin cast the first stone" was Jesus' response to people dragging a woman to be stoned for it.

The woman was found not guilty due to a lack of witnesses.

But you don't even bother reading God's word, do you?

You're just abusing the concept of the Law to be hostile to others.

Calling God's laws and demands for justice "dumb and unnecessary" isn't going to do you any favors come judgment day.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Exodus and Deuteronomy are saying the same thing, the father is just lost in the context of the latter. The father would never give his daughter over to her rapist and those fifty shekels were the compensation either in refusal or in bride-price.
The reason the father was given an option nonetheless was so in the event that an otherwise unwanted or poor woman was taken by a wealthy man she could maybe go on and carry on her father's name in in higher legacy.



1000's of years ago that was maybe a bit more appropriate.
To do it now is just dumb and unnecessary. There's a reason why we stopped doing that a very, very long time ago and it wasn't because we were 'against God'.
Also
"Let he without sin cast the first stone" was Jesus' response to people dragging a woman to be stoned for it. You're just abusing the concept of the Law to be hostile to others.

You're correct that those two passages are saying the same thing...

But neither of them have anything to do with rape.

If you would have read in Deuteronomy 22:25-27, you would know that, as rape is specifically mentioned in those three verses, separate from 28-29.



The woman was found not guilty due to a lack of witnesses.

But you don't even bother reading God's word, do you?



Calling God's laws and demands for justice "dumb and unnecessary" isn't going to do you any favors come judgment day.

Here, something for you to read while you're on vacation from TOL:

https://cbmw.org/topics/sex/did-old-testament-law-force-a-woman-to-marry-her-rapist/

 

[ok doser]

i don't get the impression that crucifer is smart enough to figure out how to read the site while he's banned

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian enters and looks around)

This was once a thriving place. Now, it's just a big hall, with with old echoes bouncing off the walls.

 

[WizardofOz]

(Barbarian enters and looks around)

This was once a thriving place. Now, it's just a big hall, with with old echoes bouncing off the walls.

Just the way Sherman likes it, apparently...