"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'?

[Difflugia]

YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO DEPEND ON THE CONTEXT - IF THERE IS CORRUPTION PRESENT

The difference between ולוـ (with a maqaf/hyphen, spelled ולו־) and ולו (without a maqaf, spelled ולו) is primarily grammatical and structural in Hebrew. ולו־ is used to attach the word "and/to him" directly to the next word,

That's a different claim. The one you presented originally is that a straightforward reading of the text as it stands agrees with your personal theology. Now you're admitting that the text only fits your theology if you change it.

That's OK to believe and I hold some minority positions myself, but it's a bit disingenuous to refer to it as merely a translation issue. The Masoretes themselves thought that the text should read the way it does now. Your reading, on the other hand, asks us to squint at it just right, remove a couple of Hebrew letters, and change the Masoretic punctuation and vowels.

"God agrees with me if you change the Bible" is nearly as old as the Bible itself.

[Face to face]

.



the passage is not addressing the subject of Rape or punishment for rape in - Deu 22:28

the previous passage commands a FULL AUTOMATIC DEATH PENATY for rape of a woman who is engaged or planning marriage this woman also would more than likely be a virgin as well.

THE AUTHOR THEN MOVES ON TO A NEW SITUATUON BUT - - this full automatic death sentence is to be carried out and the offender is to be automatically killed and put to death.

THE AUTHOR FEELS THAT A DEATH PENALTY IS ENOUGH FOR RAPE OF A VIRGIN WHO IS ENGAGED AND IS PLACING THE SCENARIO IN THE SUTUATION WHERE PEOPLE ARE WORKING IN THE FIELDS.

MEN AND WOMAN WHO ARE ALONE, OUT / AWAY FROM THE CITIES - OUT AND AWAY FROM ALL WITNESSES ...

The author then goes on to explain that if the same engaged woman or any virgin woman who responds or consents to the sexual advances of a man is to be lawfully the wife of the husband and he is legally bound to her and can never be free of her

the spelling of the forms of the words ולו־ - and - ולו are the same application to indicate - if or to


if the man has a woman who responds to his sexual advances

to the man having a woman who responds to his sexual advances

i simply left out the way it would apply for past tense and present tense - but it does not change the context of what the passage is referring to.

rape and slavery of the innocent is condemned in the Bible -- and punished by the death penalty

the Bible commands the most harsh mandatory punishment for rape of a woman who is engaged and then moves directly to giving the commandment concerning a man taking ahold of a woman who is not engaged to be married and lets the man know that if he is having sex with a virgin he may never be free of his obligation to marry her and support her for the rest of his life.


Deu 22:28 is not addressing the subject of rape or forced sexual attack

its simply saying that if there was consent and a responsive virgin - a virgin who responded to the act then the man is obligated to marry the woman.

the context is about people who are alone working in the fields - and where there are no witnesses - and the author is placing the best law for this case scenario

a woman who responded and consented - the man is obligated for a lifetime,

[Face to face]

.

the context is not concerning and addressing a Hebrew people who have an ongoing terrible and horrible problem with rape and sexual abuse.

there is very little to no rape and abuse occuring at all - and next to no sexual assault happening - its not like the Hebrew men were going around raping and abusing women ...

this is the context of the passages - WHERE A FULL AUTOMATIC DEATH PENALITY WAS IMMEDIATLY EXPECTED TO BE GIVEN FOR ADULTERY, RAPE, SLAVERY, AND OTHER IMMORAL ACTS.

THE PASSAGE IS DEALING WITH A PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING ALONE, OUT AND AWAY FROM THE CITY, WORKING WHERE NO WITNESSES ARE PRESENT

NO CAMERA - - NO CELL PHONE - - NO ONE IS THERE TO STOP A MAN FROM RAPING A WOMAN WHO COMPLETELY ALONE.

The punishment for rape was already given for a man who has forced a woman who is a virgin and also engaged to be married - therein, lies the proof the woman is engaged to another man and although she is alone working and another man would have to force her to have sex with her because the fact that she is already engaged to be married is a part of the proof - with no eye-witnesses

the passage goes on to explain the law concerning - a woman who consents and responds to the mans sexual advances

just because one example is about an engaged woman and the other about a virgin not engaged - these are not different punishments but different sets of circumstances that have different standards of proof in a situation where no one is there to witness what was done

where there is absolutely no evidence

[RBD]

Indeed few if any countries today have the death penalty for rape; and although raping a virgin did not incur the death penalty, I think an automatic financial settlement

Since any rapist was sentenced to death, there could be no financial solution.

Not even the woman raped could argue clemency.

We like to think that rape laws have been on the statues for millenia but sadly that is not the case.

1400's B.C. is more than two 2500 years ago...

Given the historical context and limitations the Mosaic law was ahead of its time and should be lauded rather than criticised.

Mat 15:8
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Changing the law as written, is criticizing it, and opening it to more criticism.