by brotherdan 116 Replies latest watchtower bible
As I already brought out, "Yada" was used over 900 times in a non sexual way.
But it is how it is used in context that matters and the use of the same word just a few verses later in v. 8 is clearly sexual (and cf. v. 14 on the betrothed status of the daughters). Similarly the word occurs in the same manner in the parallel Gibeah story, and the language there also refers to sexual violence.
This supposed justification of rape is a misreading of the text of Deut 22:28,29. You have to look at the context of this scripture. Look at the preceding verses of Deut 22:22. It commands the death penalty for adultery; both the man and the woman are to be put to death! Then 23, 24 says that both the man and the woman are to be put to death if the woman is engaged. This is speaking of consentual sex. 25-27 says that the man is to be killed if the woman is engaged and he rapes her.
Also, the word here translated "rape" does not necessarily mean "rape". THere are 2 different words used here. In verse 25, the word "chazaq" is used. It means to "seize" or "take hold of". It does not necessarily mean "rape". Verse 28 uses the word "taphas". While it has a similar meaning as "chazaq", it is not actually the same word. In both verses 25 and 28, the Hebrew word shakab is used, and while it literally means “lie down,” it is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse. So, both verses 25 and 28 describe a man seizing and having sex with a woman. While this is a possible description of rape, it does not explicitly refer to rape. Also, the differences in the Hebrew words between Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28, could be interpreted as verse 25 referring to rape, with verse 28 referring to consensual sex. Remember, the modern understanding of rape is not discussed in these verses. All it describes is a man seizing a woman and having sex with her.
To automatically assume that it was a violent encounter with the man brutally attacking the woman is not biblically supportable. It could just as easily be describing a man forcing a woman, with whom he was romantically involved but not betrothed, to have sex with him before she was willing/ready. While that would still be rape, there are definitely different degrees of rape and different amounts of violence that occur in connection with rape.
We also have to remember that the Old Testament nowhere records a rape victim being forced to marry her rapist. Even if that is the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28,29 the Bible nowhere records the command being enforced. Also, if a rape victim being forced to marry her rapist IS the correct interpretation, it must be viewed in light of the culture of the time. In the case of Tamar (2Sam 13:13-16), she would have rather have married her rapist than remain single the rest of her life. Reading modern Western societal mores into ancient Israel warps the meaning of the passage.
But we digress. We were talking about using the Bible to condemn homsexuality...
bro dan, I really think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah can be added to the "myth" category. I mean, c'mon, turning his wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back? What kind of an ass---- god does that? And then Lot has to commit incest (while drunk!!) to keep his lineage going so it can lead up to the Messiah? The whole story smacks of fairy tale, just like the rest of the Old Testament myths.
You might find this interesting....
All I know is a buddy of mine is in the ME on tour. Told me that the saying in the villages is, "Men/boys are for pleasure, women are for breeding".
And then Lot has to commit incest (while drunk!!) to keep his lineage going so it can lead up to the Messiah?
1. Lot didn't do it, his daugters did
2. God didn't command it, so don't blame God for a written History. Lots daughters were obviously wrong in what they did. They didn't need to take Lots lineage into their own hands. Maybe they had a lack of faith in God like some I know.
3. NT writers didn't view it as an allegory but as history
4. Just because you are not able to comprehend it doesn't make it not so
5. Remember, I'm the sort that takes the Bible in whole or drops it in whole.
5. Remember, I'm the sort that takes the Bible in whole or drops it in whole.
Why is that?
It doesn't specifically say anything about loving and committed relationships that take place within the same sex. It may refer to a man marrying a woman. But it doesn't say anything about same sex commitment.
Let me rant for a second...
Same gender sex is technically a sin; sinning is a-ok if you are prepared to endure the "possible consquences." These reprecussions could range from sadistic horror to, I don't know, some sort of slap on the wrist?
In the midst of these chaotic thought processes we have the issue of Gay Marriage. There is no way in our life time that the general populace will accept gay people much less the marriage of them. I have heard similar "level headed logical" approaches from the Anti Gay Marriage people too. I get the feeling like both sides just want the drama to stop, so they are willing to hang onto loose logic for so long that maybe it will become real to the population and we can get over this behemoth of a public fiasco.
But when it's all said and done justice and love will win again. We live in a time where this is a common occurance when compared to more rough times in our history.
I applaud you dan, even though I disagree with your conclusions, for defending the gay community. Because as Jesus would have wanted you are upholding the ancient Christian concept of loving your neighbor as yourself, no matter what sexual preference they have.
-Sab
How can I know which parts to throw away? As far as I can see the entire Bible is interelated. If I reject 1 book as unbiblical, then I have to reject the books by other authors that view them as scripture. If THEIR books are guided by Holy Spirit, and they claim inspiration of other books that I have personally decided need to be rejected, then I cannot trust either one. If I go through the entire Bible like that, then I will end up without a Bible.
So it's all or nothing.
That's not to say that if I rejected the Bible that I would reject belief in God. But I certainly wouldn't have any trust in the scriptures as we know them.
But this is going the way of most conversations that are supposed to be about the Genesis account. This is going way off topic. I just wanted to bring out that Genesis can't be used to condemn homosexuality as we know it.
As far as I can see the entire Bible is interelated.
I don't see how you can discount the strong possibility that it was men who put the cannon together, not God. If there is any Biblical Cohesiveness it's probably orchestrated by the successive writers who had the books that they knew about that ended up being in the Bible.
That conspriacy, to me, seems highly plausible.
-Sab
Personally, I don't think it was the act of homo sex that pissed god off. I think it was the fact of how they were going about it - violence. Homo sex has been going on since the dawn of time and even encouraged in Greece, Rome, etc. It probably had to do with property rights (women were property - free men were not). They wanted to humiliate lot. Perhaps lot was a known as the city dick/prick and this was their way of getting back at him, since he would be frowned upon for not being able to secure his guests...
