"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'?

[RBD]

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?

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: 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 neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Rape and murder are the same by Bible law.

I trust we can all reference the Biblical verse(s) which would be deemed (condoned 'rape') in the modern world?

Quote it.

Don't recall, and personally trusting, is neither studious nor objective.

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?

First, the argument is about the definition of rape by force without consent, which the Bible forbids, and now it's about the word 'rape' in the Bible?

2Sa 13:14
Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.

How about: "Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, raped her, and law with her."

The Bible doesn't say 'kidnapping' either, but condemns it:

Exo 21:16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.


Until the Bible is properly quoted, then there is no objective argument here. Just lack of recall and personal 'trust'.

[1213]

Christians, the silence in this thread is deafening.......

...FYI, I no longer read 1213's responses. ...

Funny to expect answers, when not reading them if you don't like them.

[POI]

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: 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 neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Rape and murder are the same by Bible law.

LOL! You really want to dive into Deuteronomy 22? Okay.... Before I do, please recall what I stated in the original post. "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?"

Notice the word in bold above. The sighted passage specifies an 'engaged' woman. This woman is already "promised" to another man. Her virginity is now lost. If she can prove the sex was not consensual, she gets to live. Weee! However, will the soon-to-be-husband still want her after she has been deflowered by another? Or, is the father now stuck taking care of her for life, as no man will want a de-flowered woman? This is, in part, why in verse(s) 28-29, if a man rapes/de-flowers a single virgin, he is ordered to marry her. Who, in their right mind, would want to marry their rapist captor? This is why I said what I said in the OP in the first two paragraphs.

Let's now read the full context of this chapter and find out what the Bible really thinks about a man's property rights. I mean, the woman. Apparently, if the woman is not a virgin, it's a big no-no.

(Deuteronomy 22:13-30)

13 Suppose a man marries a woman, but after going in to her, he dislikes her 14 and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying, ‘I married this woman; but when I lay with her, I did not find evidence of her virginity.’ 15 The father of the young woman and her mother shall then submit the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this man but he dislikes her; 17 now he has made up charges against her, saying, “I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.” But here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. 18 The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him; 19 they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman’s father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, 21 then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

22 If a man is caught lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

23 If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, 24 you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbour’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

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. 26 You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offence punishable by death, because this case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbour. 27 Since he found her in the open country, the engaged woman may have cried for help, but there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

30 [a] A man shall not marry his father’s wife, thereby violating his father’s rights.

***********************************************

First, the argument is about the definition of rape by force without consent, which the Bible forbids,

As demonstrated above, verses 28-29 'command' or strongly suggest that the rapist marry his rape victim.

and now it's about the word 'rape' in the Bible?

Yes, the Bible condones "rape", as defined by common sense. If you have any other passages you wish to explore, let me know?

[RBD]

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: 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 neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Rape and murder are the same by Bible law.

LOL! You really want to dive into Deuteronomy 22? Okay.... Before I do, please recall what I stated in the original post. "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?"

Which is proven false by the Bible verse.

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:

There's nothing about family honor, economic consequences, and/or social disgrace, but only a betrothed damsel and a man. Without the damsel's will.

Which applies to all betrothed damsels in the nation of Israel, whose law is the LORD's.

Num 15:16
One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

Her virginity is now lost. If she can prove the sex was not consensual, she gets to live. Weee!

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 neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Nothing about proof. Only the man dies without mercy. Amen!

However, will the soon-to-be-husband still want her after she has been deflowered by another? Or, is the father now stuck taking care of her for life, as no man will want a de-flowered woman? This is, in part, why in verse(s) 28-29, if a man rapes/de-flowers a single virgin, he is ordered to marry her. Who, in their right mind, would want to marry their rapist captor?

If a man lies with/de-flowers a damsel virgin, he is ordered to pay the father for wife, without future divorce.

Deu 22:28
If 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; 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, he may not put her away all his days.

Nothing about forced rape, but only laying with a virgin. No one can lay with another, without laying hold on them, as with laying hold on a harp and organ to play therewith...

Gen 4:21
And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle H8610 the harp and organ.

This is why a virgin damsel is specified, rather than any damsel, since laying with a betrothed married maid, is adultery, punishable by death in the law of the LORD.

Deu 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Deut 22 deals with three different conditions:
A man lies with a married woman. The man and the woman die.
A man and virgin damsel lying together. The man must marry for life.
Forced sex with any betrothed damsel. The rapist dies.

[POI]

There's nothing about family honor, economic consequences, and/or social disgrace, but only a betrothed damsel and a man. Without the damsel's will.

It's about damaging the promised man's property. She has been defiled. She is no longer a virgin. The passage specifies if she is engaged. I explained prior. Please stop with your apologetic games. They are not going to work in this thread. I laid out the entire chapter in the previous response. You are doing yourself no favors here. Let's continue some more with your doubling down.

Which applies to all betrothed damsels in the nation of Israel, whose law is the LORD's.

The law is different if the woman is promised to another, verses if the woman is not. If she is not, the rapist gets to rape her for life. God makes it legal. Again, see verse(s) 28-29 for details.

Nothing about proof. Only the man dies without mercy. Amen!

Yes, there is. If the 'cloth' is presented -- (as in verses Deut. 22:15-17), or if the woman screams audibly -- (as in Deut. 22:27)

If a man lies with/de-flowers a damsel virgin, he is ordered to pay the father for wife, without future divorce.

Right, I already stated why. The father does not want to have to take care of her for life, as dudes back then really only wanted fresh virgins. And the rapist gets to rape her for life, as no sane woman would want to marry their rapist. God just made more future rape, for life, legalized against her.

Nothing about forced rape, but only laying with a virgin. No one can lay with another, without laying hold on them, as with laying hold on a harp and organ to play therewith...

Please re-read what I wrote in the OP. 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). The man has needs, and the legal way to fulfill these needs, is by legalizing the "rape".

This is why a virgin damsel is specified, rather than any damsel, since laying with a betrothed married maid, is adultery, punishable by death in the law of the LORD.

Nope. Deuteronomy explains. Men wanted virgins. I made sure to highlight some of these spots in my last response. If the woman was not promised to another, the rapist gets to legally rape her for life, as no one else would ever have her.

Deu 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

So, if she's raped while she's married, she still has to die, as the husband's property has been violated by another man?

Deut 22 deals with three different conditions:
1) A man lies with a married woman. The man and the woman die.
2) A man and virgin damsel lying together. The man must marry for life.
3) Forced sex with any betrothed damsel. The rapist dies.

1) a) If she did not offer consent, and is still ordered to die anyways, seems rather odd. b) If this is instead about mutual consent, then we are no longer talking about 'rape' in the Bible. Pick your poison between a) and b).

2) God sanctions future 'rape', as the male will have legal rights to continue relations with her. as no woman would want to merry their rapist.

3) Soiling the other man's promised property is a big no-no. No man back then would want her anymore, and the father will likely be stuck having to take care of her for the rest of his life,

[RBD]

There's nothing about family honor, economic consequences, and/or social disgrace, but only a betrothed damsel and a man. Without the damsel's will.

It's about damaging the promised man's property.

Nor property. Only a damsel's will.

The passage specifies if she is engaged.

Nor property. Only an engaged damsel's will.

Which applies to all betrothed damsels in the nation of Israel, whose law is the LORD's.

The law is different if the woman is promised to another, verses if the woman is not.

The law applies equally in each case:
Laying with a woman to wed, and then falsely accusing her of fornication. The false accuser is fined and shall remain married to her. No matter the man's wealth, position, property...

Laying with a married woman is adultery. Death is for both. The same for an engaged woman. No matter their wealth, position, property...

Raping an engaged woman. Death for the rapist. No matter his wealth, position, property...

Laying with a virgin. Man must marry her. No matter his wealth, position, property...

If she is not, the rapist gets to rape her for life. God makes it legal. Again, see verse(s) 28-29 for details.

Not forcibly raped, as with murder. Laid with.

You can keep inserting your own presumption into the law, to change it from what it says, but that doesn't work with me.

Nothing about proof. Only the man dies without mercy. Amen!

Yes, there is. If the 'cloth' is presented -- (as in verses Deut. 22:15-17), or if the woman screams audibly -- (as in Deut. 22:27)

The blood stained cloth of the newly wed woman, is proof of virginity. Not rape.

Seriously. You need to try reading the words without your own presumptions.

The woman's scream is built in proof of rape. If no one hears, the man is still a rapist.

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 neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

It's manifest that marrying the raped woman is not possible, since the penalty is death.

If a man lies with/de-flowers a damsel virgin, he is ordered to pay the father for wife, without future divorce.

Right, I already stated why. The father does not want to have to take care of her for life, as dudes back then really only wanted fresh virgins.

The why, is because she's no longer a virgin by laying with him, and so they marry after the fact.

Nothing about forced rape, but only laying with a virgin. No one can lay with another, without laying hold on them, as with laying hold on a harp and organ to play therewith...

Please re-read what I wrote in the OP. 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). The man has needs, and the legal way to fulfill these needs, is by legalizing the "rape".

Your modern pseudo-social philosophy does not change the law of the LORD.

This is why a virgin damsel is specified, rather than any damsel, since laying with a betrothed married maid, is adultery, punishable by death in the law of the LORD.

Nope. Deuteronomy explains. Men wanted virgins.

Yep. Deut says it.

Show in the Scripture where men only wanted virgins. David loved Abigail, the widow of Nadab.

Deut 22 deals with three different conditions:
1) A man lies with a married woman. The man and the woman die.
2) A man and virgin damsel lying together. The man must marry for life.
3) Forced sex with any betrothed damsel. The rapist dies.

1) a) If she did not offer consent, and is still ordered to die anyways, seems rather odd. b) If this is instead about mutual consent, then we are no longer talking about 'rape' in the Bible. Pick your poison between a) and b).

1 A man lies with a married woman. The man and the woman die.
2 A man and virgin damsel lying together. The man must marry for life.
3 Forced sex with any betrothed damsel. The rapist dies.

Corrupting the law by inserting personal presumption, doesn't work with me. And continuing to repeat the presumption, rather than be corrected by the law, only woks with me a couple times.

[POI]

Nor property. Only a damsel's will.

It's not about the promised woman's will. Why? It specifically mentions an engaged woman and not any woman. This is because this passage is about dishonoring the future would-be husband. His promise of having a virgin is now wrecked. The rapist must die for ruining his honor.

.The law applies equally in each case:

No, it doesn't. It's situational.

Laying with a woman to wed, and then falsely accusing her of fornication. The false accuser is fined and shall remain married to her. No matter the man's wealth, position, property...

This is not about rape. This is about the man accusing her of not being a virgin, which was a big no-no. Why? If it were to turn out she apparently wasn't a virgin, based upon garbage "evidence" to begin with, she gets stoned to death in front of her father, because again, it is about family honor. All because she apparently lied about prior relations. Those silly ancients....

Laying with a married woman is adultery. Death is for both. The same for an engaged woman. No matter their wealth, position, property..

A married woman cannot be raped by another man? All married women are auto-killed, no matter what the actual circumstances are? (Deut 22:22)

Laying with a virgin. Man must marry her. No matter his wealth, position, property...

Is the raped woman's' consent required? I doubt it. Again, see my OP. I can't imagine ANY raped woman wanting to spend the rest of their lives with their rapist?

Not forcibly raped, as with murder. Laid with. You can keep inserting your own presumption into the law, to change it from what it says, but that doesn't work with me.

It won't work with you because you are in complete denial of the Bible's lack of common sense. It's no longer considered "rape" once they are deemed "man and wife". Again, see my explanation in the first 2 paragraphs of the OP.

The woman's scream is built in proof of rape. If no one hears, the man is still a rapist.

Some women remain silent, out of fear, or because the rapist threatens them and tells them to "remain quiet or else".... The law in Deuteronomy is completely unaware of common sense. She dies for her silence. (Deut. 22:23-24).

It's manifest that marrying the raped woman is not possible, since the penalty is death.

This further proves that virginity is of the highest importance for most.

The why, is because she's no longer a virgin by laying with him, and so they marry after the fact.

The "why" is that no one else would ever want a raped woman. Either the father takes care of her, or the rapist. The woman has no choice in the matter. She is merely property of the men. Common sense, in those days, would instead suggest a differing "punishment". Something like ordering the rapist to be the slave of the raped woman's father for life, or, be ordered to financially support her for life without also having legal rights to her loins for life. For all we know. dirty men raped the women they knew they could never get on their own to secure the hottie they liked, but she did not express interest in return?

Your modern pseudo-social philosophy does not change the law of the LORD.

Nope. Your LORD's commands just lack basic common sense. Back then, virginity was of the highest importance. I highlighted all the times Deut. 22 spoke of a woman's virginity.

Yep. Deut says it. Show in the Scripture where men only wanted virgins.

I just highlighted all the spots in red, in Deut. 22:13-30, a couple of posts back... Please reference it again, if need-be..

David loved Abigail, the widow of Nadab.

There can always be exceptions. He was the exception, not the rule, as per Deuteronomy 22.

1 A man lies with a married woman. The man and the woman die.
2 A man and virgin damsel lying together. The man must marry for life.
3 Forced sex with any betrothed damsel. The rapist dies.

Corrupting the law by inserting personal presumption, doesn't work with me.

Ignoring the Bible's complete lack of common sense isn't going to work for me.

1) a) If she did not offer consent, and is still ordered to die anyways, seems rather odd. b) If this is instead about mutual consent, then we are no longer talking about 'rape' in the Bible. Pick your poison between a) and b).

2) God sanctions future 'rape', as the male will have legal rights to continue relations with her. as no woman would want to merry their rapist.

3) Soiling the other man's promised property is a big no-no. No man back then would want her anymore, and the father will likely be stuck having to take care of her for the rest of his life,

[Haven]

This subject alone is strong evidence that the Bible is a collection of writings from benighted, ancient savages and not any kind of divine wisdom. I don’t have anything else to add to what POI has already said (thanks).

[RBD]

.The law applies equally in each case:

No, it doesn't. It's situational.

Yes it does in each situation.

Laying with a woman to wed, and then falsely accusing her of fornication. The false accuser is fined and shall remain married to her. No matter the man's wealth, position, property...

This is not about rape. [/quote]
Correct. The only rape situation, is where the man dies for raping an engaged maid, which releases the engaged maid from death for having forced sex with another man.

Otherwise, the engaged maid and man are put to death for the adultery, the same as a married woman. Nor, is she forced to marry the rapist, since an unengaged maid must marry any man she lays down with.

This is about the man accusing her of not being a virgin, which was a big no-no. Why?

Because it's a lie, and defrauds the innocent woman's integrity.

If it were to turn out she apparently wasn't a virgin, based upon garbage "evidence" to begin with, she gets stoned to death in front of her father,

Another lie of your own personal code.

Nowhere does the law put any unengaged virgin to death for having sex with a man. Only if she is engaged, and then is put to death with the man, like adulterers.

If you want unengaged girls to remain virgin on pains of death, then that's your personal law, not the Bible God's. Nowhere in the law of God, is any person put to death for fornication.

because again, it is about family honor. All because she apparently lied about prior relations. Those silly ancients....

Your silly law.

Laying with a married woman is adultery. Death is for both. The same for an engaged woman. No matter their wealth, position, property..

A married woman cannot be raped by another man? [/quote]

In which case, as that of the engaged maiden, the man is put to death.

No virgin, maid, nor woman is put to death for being raped, nor forced to marry the rapist. Which in itself is impossible in the law of the LORED, since the rapist is put to death.

Your personal code cannot possibly be enforced in OT Bible law.

All married women are auto-killed, no matter what the actual circumstances are? (Deut 22:22)

Not with rape, which is not the case.

All married women, and men not married to them, are killed for laying down with one another.

Not forcibly raped, as with murder. Laid with. You can keep inserting your own presumption into the law, to change it from what it says, but that doesn't work with me.

It's no longer considered "rape" once they are deemed "man and wife".[/quote]
It's not possible to ever be married to any rapist by any woman, once the rapist is dead. If OT law is properly enforced without respect to the rapist's wealth or position.

However, under your degenerate law, any rapist is free to then forcibly 'marry' the raped maid.

Both the OT Israelitish women, and any modern woman, can be thankful your personal law is not enforced. I mean, even Sharia law isn't as cruel as yours.

Only some isolated Islamic and Buddhists countries, have had rape-marriage laws, where the rapist can escape punishment by marrying the victim.
However, that's a clear perversion of the Koran, that does not allow it. I don't know about Buddhism.

No Jewish nation has ever perverted the law of Moses to that extent. And other countries only offer it for statutory rape, where it was consent with a minor.

So, your personal marry-the-rapist law is limited to you, and a few rogue Muslim and Buddhist countries.

The woman's scream is built in proof of rape. If no one hears, the man is still a rapist.

Some women remain silent, out of fear, or because the rapist threatens them and tells them to "remain quiet or else".... [/quote]

Your personal witness is as false as your personal rogue law, that would command the raped maid to marry her rapist.

It's manifest that marrying the raped woman is not possible, since the penalty is death.

This further proves that virginity is of the highest importance for most.[/quote]

What? Most rapists, that they're willing to die for it?

This further proves that impossibly false arguments are the highest importance for most people, that must find fault with the Bible.

Yep. Deut says it. Show in the Scripture where men only wanted virgins.

I just highlighted all the spots in red, in Deut. 22:13-30, a couple of posts back... Please reference it again, if need-be.. [/quote]

This further proves that inserting lies into the Bible is the highest importance for most people, that must find fault with the Bible, including when there aren't any quotes for them in the Bible.

David loved Abigail, the widow of Nadab.

There can always be exceptions. He was the exception, not the rule, as per Deuteronomy 22.[/quote]
So, not all men demand only virgins to marry. Including anointed kings of Israel.

Bathsheba wasn't a virgin either.

[POI]

FYI, it's really hard to sift through this response, as you misquoted a lot... I may have missed some stuff because of it?.?.? However, what we do know, is that the Bible is okay with 'rape', as common sense defines in the OP. Okay, let's continue...

Correct. The only rape situation, is where the man dies for raping an engaged maid, which releases the engaged maid from death for having forced sex with another man. Otherwise, the engaged maid and man are put to death for the adultery, the same as a married woman. Nor, is she forced to marry the rapist, since an unengaged maid must marry any man she lays down with.

I already addressed this. Post 17 --> Some women remain silent, out of fear, or because the rapist threatens them and tells them to "remain quiet or else".... The law in Deuteronomy is completely unaware of common sense. She dies for her silence. (Deut. 22:23-24).

Nowhere does the law put any unengaged virgin to death for having sex with a man.

I would agree. She is instead forced to marry her rapist. See below...

Your silly law.

Common sense dictates that an 'all-knowing' god would order a better law, as almost half of women do not bleed during first intercourse anyways. It's just another shining example that this collection of laws was man-made, by ancients who lacked basic common sense, as opposed to some claimed all-knowing god. Being a virgin was of the highest priority.

Not with rape, which is not the case. All married women, and men not married to them, are killed for laying down with one another.

Then please explain the following passage below, as it orders the death of the wife -- without any given exception(s):

22 If a man is caught lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

In essence, if a wife is raped by another, she still dies?

It's not possible to ever be married to any rapist by any woman, once the rapist is dead.

Yes, it is. Common sense RBD, common sense. The rapist gets to keep raping her, legal-style, for the rest of the rapist's life. The rape victim has no choice in the matter. The father gets paid, and she now belongs to the rapist. Please also re-read the first 2 paragraphs in the OP. Also, the woman's consent is neither necessary nor required. --> 28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

Bathsheba wasn't a virgin either.

Right. There can always be exceptions to the rule. Deuteronomy 22 implies that being a female virgin is the rule.