Why Theonomy?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

How is a law that appears in the Old Testament not an Old Testament law? :readthis:

Lighthouse was commenting that my paraphrase was not precise enough, not that the passage I was paraphrasing was not extant.

 

[Granite]

Lighthouse was commenting that my paraphrase was not precise enough, not that the passage I was paraphrasing was not extant.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Lighthouse]

OK, that makes sense. I still disagree with the division between "moral" and "ceremonial" law, but I at least understand where you're coming from.



Lighthouse, I honestly understand ... but the facts are the facts, and this particular fact is right there in black and white. Now, I know Turbo told y'all that it means something different (back in the NIV thread), but I also know what the Hebrew says.

Justin

Why is it that in this particular law there is no mention of whether she called out, or not? Why is it that in the one that makes it blatantly clear it's about rape, it discusses whether or not she called out for help?

 

[Lighthouse]

How is a law that appears in the Old Testament not an Old Testament law? :readthis:

He misquoted it. That's how. If you could read, maybe you would have caught that bit of information.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Why is it that in this particular law there is no mention of whether she called out, or not? Why is it that in the one that makes it blatantly clear it's about rape, it discusses whether or not she called out for help?

Because with an unbetrothed girl, it didn't matter--the passage in Deuteronomy does not differentiate between seduction and rape. Whether she was a willing parter in fornication or the victim of rape, there was no difference for her. Even R. J. Rushdooney recognizes this:

In the case of a single girl, unbetrothed, the decision rested in the hands of the girl’s father, and, in part, the girl. If the offender, cited simply as a seducer in Exodus 22:16, 17, and as a rapist in Deuteronomy 22:28, 29, is an acceptable husband, then he shall pay 50 shekels of silver as a dowry and marry her, without right of divorce “because he hath humbled her” (Deut. 22:29); but “If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins” (Ex. 22:17).

R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 396-397, emphasis added.

Justin

 

[Lighthouse]

Rushdoony's a loony.

There is a major differentiation between the two laws. But you didn't listen to Turbo, so why should I expect you to listen to me?

 

[Granite]

He misquoted it. That's how. If you could read, maybe you would have caught that bit of information.

The law is very straightforward, Brandon, which is why guys like you have to spin your wheels justifying it.

 

[Zakath]

Awww, c'mon Justin. You know how they hate it when you throw their own leaders' words back in their faces... :chuckle:

 

[Granite]

Rushdoony's a loony.

There is a major differentiation between the two laws. But you didn't listen to Turbo, so why should I expect you to listen to me?

As if you know who Rushdoony was and have read a lick of the man's lifework.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Rushdoony's a loony.

:shrug: Lighthouse, I happen to agree completely--but Rushdoony is also one of the "founding fathers" of the modern Theonomy movement.

There is a major differentiation between the two laws. But you didn't listen to Turbo, so why should I expect you to listen to me?

You're quite incorrect, Lighthouse--I did listen to Turbo, and I listened to you. But your opinions to not change the text, and the text is quite clear.

 

[Jefferson]

That's two uses out of sixty-five

The context is the ultimate, deciding factor in how a questionable word should be translated. And the words, "they are found" decides this context.

The distinction here is not between verses 25-27 and 28-29, but between verses 23-24 and 25-27.

Every section in this chapter is distinct from the others. Verse 22 deals with a married woman and fornication. Verses 23 and 24 deal with a betrothed woman and fornication. Verses 25-27 deal with a betrothed woman and rape. And verses 28-29 deal with a single woman and fornication.

That's just crap, Jefferson. This is the only place such a phrase appears in the entire chapter--there is no comparison.

I must be missing your point. Are you actually saying just because "they are found" only appears once, those words should be ignored? You're kidding, right?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Hi, Jefferson,

I was beginning to get worried--then I checked your "Last Online" on your profile, and deduced that you must have been busy lately. I hope all is going well with you.

The context is the ultimate, deciding factor in how a questionable word should be translated. And the words, "they are found" decides this context.

Context is never "the ultimate, deciding factor." It is one factor in many.

However, in this case, interpreting "they were found" as "seduction is the only possible translation" is not context--it is eisegesis, pure and simple. It is your interpretation that "it couldn't possibly mean rape," because you disagree with the analysis. :shrug: So be it--you disagree. But you are wrong:

* Maimonides 1195: 4:1:2
Who is a violator? A violator has intercourse with the victim against her will . . . he must be compelled to consent to marriage; he must consummate the marriage and pay the fine as well.

And I've already cited Rushdoony.

I must be missing your point. Are you actually saying just because "they are found" only appears once, those words should be ignored? You're kidding, right?

I am saying "they are found" bears no particular weight in this passage. "They are found" does not make a distinction between rape or seduction.

Justin

 

[Turbo]

"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. Exodus 22:16 (NIV)​

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It should be noted that the only group of people who make this argument (that I am aware of) are the folks who are specifically opposed to the NIV.

It should be noted that many people (including myself) are specifically opposed to the NIV because of its mistranslation of this Deuteronomy 22 passage.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

"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. Exodus 22:16 (NIV)​

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Sounds close, but there are notable differences. Let's look at the two passages together.

Ex 22:16-17, KJV
16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Deut 22:28-29, KJV
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then 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, he may not put her away all his days.

I can't set up a table here to do a side-by-side, but let's compare.
* "Entice" (pathah)
This means simply to "persuade, seduce, or deceive." (Cite)

* "lay hold on" (taphas)
Out of the 65 times that taphal is used, 63 of these times bear a meaning of "seize or capture by force." Unless one has some very unusual ideas on foreplay, one does not "seize or capture by force" a lover. (Cite)

* "humbled ('anah)
This is exactly the same word used of Shechem's treatement of Dinah--there it is translated "defiled." (Cite)

But the language is not the only notable thing--there was also a difference in the consequences to the man.
* Of the Seducer, the father had the authority to permit or deny the marriage. Additionally, at no point does the Exodus passage forbid a later divorce.
* Of the Defiler, the marriage is unavoidable--even the father may not deny the marriage. Additionally, divorce is not permitted.

Turbo, if you understand enough Hebrew to use a Strong's concordance without grave difficulty, then the evidence is right there for you. If you do not understand the Hebrew, but are simply objecting to the English translation, then you are guilty of what is called "Eisegeisis"--in other words, you're reading into the Law what you want to be there, rather than what is actually there.

Justin

Edited to add:

It should be noted that many people (including myself) are specifically opposed to the NIV because of its mistranslation of this Deuteronomy 22 passage.

Does walking through the Hebrew and discovering that this was not a mistranslation change your opinion of the NIV any?

 

[Jefferson]

Hi, Jefferson,

I was beginning to get worried--then I checked your "Last Online" on your profile, and deduced that you must have been busy lately. I hope all is going well with you.

My engaging in debates only about once every 2 to 3 days is par for me. Notice my post per day count (2.7) compared to your 30+. I don't know how you find the time, but I envy you.

* Maimonides 1195: 4:1:2
Who is a violator? A violator has intercourse with the victim against her will . . . he must be compelled to consent to marriage; he must consummate the marriage and pay the fine as well.

And I've already cited Rushdoony.

Maimonides and Rushdoony have the right to disagree with me.

I am saying "they are found" bears no particular weight in this passage. "They are found" does not make a distinction between rape or seduction.

God could have chosen to inspire the words, "he was found" but He deliberately chose not to because it would not have communicated the meaning He wanted.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

My engaging in debates only about once every 2 to 3 days is par for me. Notice my post per day count (2.7) compared to your 30+.

I should have thought about that.

I don't know how you find the time, but I envy you.

Ah, if you knew I don't think you'd be so envious, my friend. I'm disabled. No biggie ... just something I deal with.

Justin

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Maimonides and Rushdoony have the right to disagree with me.

Ah, but what happens if they're right and you're wrong?

Jefferson, I walked through the Hebrew with Turbo (in Post 194)--and as I told him, if you have enough Hebrew to use a Strong's Concordance and Lexicon, you can read it as clearly as I can. (The "Cite" links in my post go to Strong's on blueletterbible.com)

God could have chosen to inspire the words, "he was found" but He deliberately chose not to because it would not have communicated the meaning He wanted.

And do you know so well the mind of God as to know why he chose one set of words over another? Or is it simply that you cannot accept the possibility of error on your part?

Go read the Hebrew, Jefferson. When you come back from that, we'll discuss it further, if you wish.

 

[Turbo]

Sounds close, but there are notable differences. Let's look at the two passages together.

Ex 22:16-17, KJV
16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Deut 22:28-29, KJV
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then 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, he may not put her away all his days.

I can't set up a table here to do a side-by-side, but let's compare.
* "Entice" (pathah)
This means simply to "persuade, seduce, or deceive." (Cite)

* "lay hold on" (taphas)
Out of the 65 times that taphal is used, 63 of these times bear a meaning of "seize or capture by force." Unless one has some very unusual ideas on foreplay, one does not "seize or capture by force" a lover. (Cite)

Many Bibles translate the word "seize" in Deut. 22, and I have no problem with that.

Jim swept Betty off her feet.

Did Jim attack Betty? Did he knock her to the ground? Feel free to look up the definition of each word while considering your answer.


Why is it that in the case where the betrothed virgin is raped, God used words like "forced" and "cried out", but those terms are absent in the case of the unbetrothed virgin?

What does a rape victim have to hide, anyway? they are found out? In the earlier example, it is made clear that the woman was the victim of a crime, and not guilty:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. Deuteronomy 22:25-27​

* "humbled ('anah)
This is exactly the same word used of Shechem's treatement of Dinah--there it is translated "defiled." (Cite)

But the language is not the only notable thing--there was also a difference in the consequences to the man.
* Of the Seducer, the father had the authority to permit or deny the marriage. Additionally, at no point does the Exodus passage forbid a later divorce.
* Of the Defiler, the marriage is unavoidable--even the father may not deny the marriage. Additionally, divorce is not permitted.

So dad is allowed to veto the marriage if he's her boyfriend, but if he's a violent criminal, dad gets no say. Yeah, that makes so much sense. :freak:

Who needs courtship? Just find some virgin you like and rape her. Then you'll get to marry her, no questions asked. Give me a break!

Turbo, if you understand enough Hebrew to use a Strong's concordance without grave difficulty, then the evidence is right there for you.

Same to you, but I would suggest considering the context of the words within the chapter the rest of the Bible as well.

If you do not understand the Hebrew, but are simply objecting to the English translation, then you are guilty of what is called "Eisegeisis"--in other words, you're reading into the Law what you want to be there, rather than what is actually there.

Well, you are the one who says a word that typically means "seizes" should be translated as "rapes."

Does walking through the Hebrew and discovering that this was not a mistranslation change your opinion of the NIV any?

Nice leading question. You haven't shown me anything that I haven't seen before. I still recognize this is a mistranslation, and I will oppose the NIV so long as that mistranslation is present.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Many Bibles translate the word "seize" in Deut. 22, and I have no problem with that.

Jim swept Betty off her feet.

Did Jim attack Betty? Did he knock her to the ground? Feel free to look up the definition of each word while considering your answer.

Turbo, if you honestly believe that you can correct the Hebrew with the English, then you're falling into precisely the same error that you condemn the JWs for when they translate John 1:1 as "And the Word was a God." The meaning of taphas is not "swept off her feet," but to seize by force--indeed, the same word is used when describing seizing an enemy or an enemy city.

Why is it that in the case where the betrothed virgin is raped, God used words like "forced" and "cried out", but those terms are absent in the case of the unbetrothed virgin?

Why is it that God didn't write the passage in English? I neither know, nor care, Turbo. I do know what the passage says.

What does a rape victim have to hide, anyway? they are found out? In the earlier example, it is made clear that the woman was the victim of a crime, and not guilty:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. Deuteronomy 22:25-27​

Turbo, that's immaterial to the translation of this verse.

So dad is allowed to veto the marriage if he's her boyfriend, but if he's a violent criminal, dad gets no say. Yeah, that makes so much sense. :freak:

I'm not at all concerned with whether or not you agree with it, Turbo. The Mosaic Law was not made for our twenty-first century sensibilities.

Who needs courtship? Just find some virgin you like and rape her. Then you'll get to marry her, no questions asked. Give me a break!

That was the Law. If you disagree with that conclusion, then you are left with no Law whatsoever against the rape of an unbetrothed virgin. No where else in the Bible is there a law discussing the rape of an unbetrothed virgin--the closest thing you have is the subterfuge of Simeon and Levi. While I consider that the sons of Jacob acted to be quite appropriate, this is a return to unregulated vigilantism.

Same to you, but I would suggest considering the context of the words within the chapter the rest of the Bible as well.

Oh, but I am--as well as the context of the history.

Well, you are the one who says a word that typically means "seizes" should be translated as "rapes."

I tell you what--if you don't believe me, take that passage to any Rabbi. Ask them to translate it for you. Ask them if "rape" is a suitable translation.

Nice leading question. You haven't shown me anything that I haven't seen before. I still recognize this is a mistranslation, and I will oppose the NIV so long as that mistranslation is present.

It is said that an honest man who is in error, when introduced to his error, may remain only one of the two. Which shall you choose--your preferred "gentle and kind" translation, or what the Hebrew actually says.

 

[Skeptic]

Coersion is certainly out of the question.

Oh yeah?

Further your hypothical fails to take into consideration the society that a Biblical system would create. It would be impossible to completely, or even mostly shield one's self or one's children from the Biblical worldview. The very fabric of the society would have Biblical principles woven throughout.

Sounds like institutionalized government coercion to me.