Is the bible God's Word?

by WTLies 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  WTLies

  The Watchtower once believed that if a woman did not scream while being raped, then she was guilty of fornication. She was 'in on' her own rape, thus she too is just as guilty as her rapist. I don't think there is a person in this forum today, who does not find this reasoning repugnant and archaic. But from where did this belief originate? Did the Governing Body come up with this on their own, was it misapplied scripture, or was it right from God's own word the bible?

  Deuteronomy 22:23-24

  "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her,

  YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst."

  The WT went along with what was written here in God's Word and nearly everyone on this forum would disagree with that stance. However if you believe in the bible as the unerring word of God how can you blame the WT? God created woman and knows their mental physical and emotional make up. Why would HE tell us that she has to scream, or she dies along with her attacker if it were wrong? All of you who believe in the bible as Gods word yet attack the WT on this issue and many others like it (more to come in this series) are you being fair here? This was not the WT's law, it was God's, according to the bible. Thousands of years old yes, but still God's law. Where the woman at that time so different that they were all able to scream, yet woman today at times are not able to?

  I have no love for the Watchtower Society (thus my screenname) but you can't have it both ways. The WT was following what was written in the bible when they disfellowshipped hundreds, if not thousands of woman who did not call out while being raped. If you are outraged at the WT for the second rape of those women, losing their families and friends, kicked out and shunned, only because they could not scream, due to the anxiety and trauma of their rape. Then you should feel more so, for the thousands who were STONED TO DEATH along side their rapist in ancient times.

  Does this sound like the word of God to you? Even the WT realized that not every woman could scream while under such an attack. They saw the need to change their stance on this issue despite what is written in the bible. They went from saying things like this:

  Watchtower Oct 15,1980 page 7 "Avoiding the Tragedy of Rape"

  "A Christian woman is under obligation to resist, for the issue of obedience to God's law to "flee from fornication" is involved. (1 Cor. 6:18) By no means would it be proper for her willingly to submit to being raped."

  Changing to saying things like this:

  Awake March 8,1993 page 5 "The Reality of Rape"

  "Rape by definition takes place when force or the threat of force is used to gain sexual penetration, of any kind whatsoever, against a person's will. It is the rapist's use of force against an unwilling victim that makes him a rapist. Thus, a rape victim is not guilty of fornication. Like an incest victim, she may be forced to submit to an act she doesn't want because of the perceived power held over her by another person. When a woman is forced to submit to a rapist out of terror or disorientation, it does not mean that she consents to the act. Consent is based on choice without threat and is active, not passive."

  According to Gods Word, not to scream is to submit to, or be a willing party to being raped. Thus the woman is stoned along with her attacker. If this is what God said, why would it need to be changed today in light of new information about rape, and what force by intimidation does to a person under duress? That by definition rape is an act forced upon her, against her will, there is no way she is an accomplice . Wouldn't God know all of this before making the law? Doesn't He know the end from the beginning? If God's Organization saw fit to change God's Law, do they then, know more than God? Is God blood guilty? What about all those woman, who were pelted with stones until they died because they were too intimidated to scream, will they be brought back, since God's law was adjusted by man? Was this really the word of God?

  I was brought up to believe the bible is the unerring word of Almighty God. But things like these makes me wonder. Do you wonder as well?

  William,

  Former member of a Non-Prophet organization
• 

  ChrisVance

  No, I don't wonder. I know it's a pile of crap.
• 

  Amazing

  The Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures to a JW) is hard to accept in many passages, especially by today's standards and political-philosophical views. Many, maybe most people, reject the idea of the death penalty ... so even if the man in the above verses, from Deut. 22, were a rapist, then by today's standards he should only go to jail for some period of time.

  I believe that the context of the verses in question were mainly directed at couples who commit fornication, to hold the women equally responsible for fornication as the man. Unfortunately, the Bible is poorly written and simply should have stated that unless she were raped, she would be equally responsible for fornication. Instead, the Bible gives one example of being raped, such as screaming, and unfortunately, this became the standard for such idiotic groups as the JWs who take 'screaming' as the only viable evidence of rape.

  Another problem is culture. Back in ancient Hebrew times women were viewed and treated as property. So, they held no rights and likely may have felt that if a man wants sex they must submit. So from this standpoint, 'screaming' may have been endorsed as a way to say that a women did not have to submit even though she had no rights ... and failure to scream again meant she was participating with the theif of her owner's property.

  The Watchtower needs to back off from this policy. The Bible is a rich historical work that may well contain some of the words of God ... but it is clearly an ancient work of a much different culture that does not fit in with modern thinking. The Bible is poorly written for the most part. Certainly is seems much of it is the word of men who attached the term "God" to what they wrote.

  Though, many Islamic cultures today are still living with the same mind-set ... especially those Islamic peoples living in the middle east, Asia, and parts of the South Pacific. This is why the USA is so hated as a corrupt and evil nation, because women are not treated as property ... this is why we are at fault, as they see it and as many non-Americans see it, for them destroying the World Trade Center ... because we are so corrupt that even our women have equal rights and freedom. We are truly in a war of cultures.

  Edited by - Amazing on 29 August 2002 9:54:51
• 

  little witch

  jw's, like other fundies, interpret the bible literally. so ok, lets take it literally. Then jesus comes along and makes it known that the law condemns everyone. nobody could live up to those standards. he shows (to the dismay of the fundies of that time) that we could now stop picking on each other. he said the letter of the law was to love one another.

  personally, I like his take on things a whole lot better than the borg's! just my two pennies.
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Little Witch: I think you make very good points. This is why I call Jesus Christ the Great Revisionist. He was a radical for his day and in many ways for our day as well ... were it not for Jesus I wold totally give up on the notion of a god, or faith in anything beyond humanity.
• 

  DJ

  Me too..............Amazing. luv, dj
• 

  Nanoprobe

  little witch, of course has given us the correct answer.

  However Id like to explore the question: Is the Watchtower applying this scriptural text correctly?

  First of all: What effect would such a law have on the people of that time period?

  Witnessing one stoning and believe me Im changing my rules.

  Just a few ideas:

  1) As a parent I would teach my daughters to be SCREAMERS. We would practice screaming like your life depended on it. (I personally am a screamer, if you grab me I start screaming, I dont reason, I dont think, I just scream until my throat is hoarse) I would teach them to never be alone if it could be avoided.

  2) I would teach my sons to stay away from situations where there was only one girl present.

  3) If this meant your childs what else would you do?

  I read a whole series of TIME/LIFE articles on the women of Afghanistan. Even though those poor women were draped head to foot--- rape was very common. In fact it was so common that the Taliban womens word for it was laying down. Thats all they could do lay down and endure it. They couldnt report it because no one would believe them anyway. At least in Israel they had some recourse.

  What I think is important from an understanding of those scriptures about screaming is the circumstances.

  Let's pretend that I live in a city with a 3-minute response time to a 911 call and someone breaks into my house. Can I survive for 3 minutes? That's my decision to make. However, most people do call 911. Now let's pretend that I have 911 panic button hanging on my neck and it's my next door neighbor who will respond with gun in hand. I'm pushing the button, because I know the neighbor can be there in 25 seconds. I also have no guarantee I'm getting out of this alive so I'm willing to fight for a chance.

  On another thread I said: In ancient Israelite cities---- there was no automobile/traffic noise, no airplanes overhead, no concrete trucks pouring next door, no televisions, no radios, no electricity and in fact, not even any glass in the window openings. Also women didn't work outside the home, children didn't go to school and men didn't commute. People were all around. If a woman screamed she had a very good chance of being heard and immediately rescued before she was injured. The SCREAM was like the panic button.

  Notice the same law did not apply to areas where she would not be heard.
• 

  SixofNine

  But what if she was too afraid to scream, Nano? Or what if she had been taught by abusive parents not to scream? What if it was her father who raped her? After she was raped, if she later married, and her husband complained because she didn't bleed on her wedding night, would supposed evidence for that still be inspected by the older men of the city and then stoned because her hymen wasn't intact?

  It's obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence and decency, that no loving supernatural power had any say in the bible's content. It was written by religious men.
• 

  gumby

  YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones

  Why dosen't the Watchtower follow the bible on this too??????????

  How come you don't offer Jehovah sacrafices like the Jews did

  And how do I get rid of this damn yellow highlighter?
• 

  seedy3

  Ok First off let me make this clear, I do not beleive the Bible is the word of any God.

  Ok now that I got that off my chest lets get to the matter at hand.

  If this is to be taken literally, lets examine it for a moment and apply it to todays usage by the JW's

  Deuteronomy 22:23-24

  "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her,

  YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst."

  Ok the first sentence is pretty clear, a couple that is not married, but engaged to be married. If she has sex with another man other then her "Betrothed" she is to be stoned for fornication. The City would mean the congregation of christians today and pelting them with stones, would be the equal of DF'ing for the JW's. So there-by if you today as a JW are engaged you should be DF'd for fornacation. according to a literal application to this scripture and using it in our sence today. But......... lets look further then this scripture, because, if this one is to be taken literal then so should other onthe same subject matter.

  Deuteronomy 22:28,29
  
  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.

  So on this note, a woman/girl that is not betrothed, and is caught fornacating, is to marry the man that had sex with her, and he is to pay her father money to purchase her. But....... The WTS does not accept this law as they do the other one. In their opnion even the non-betrothed woman should be stonned (DF'd) for fornacation.

  Also what about the laws on sabbath, eating certain meats, Sacrafices, ect, ect, ect. These laws they say were fulfilled by Jesus perfect example and his death. So....... why do they refer to Deuteronomy to justify their actions? Why is there selective law fulfilment?

  Seedy