Vanderhoven, that is the strangest "defense" of the Bible.
Basically, instead of addressing the issue of men raping women and then marrying them, it sidetracks with the use of words in the instance of Potiphar's wife and Joseph, then simply declares "Nonetheless, the claim......is incorrect."
Especially in Bible times, but still so- rapists are generally men. And to suggest a softening of the meaning centuries later is just reinventing what the Bible says. It was clear that if the woman was "engaged," she should have saved herself by crying out, so the Bible refers to rape and the people who read it back then knew that.
The Bible doesn't declare that people should stone a rapist (or otherwise kill him) unless she belongs to another man. The Bible tries to imply that the rapist is accountable for what he did. That means, he is stuck with the woman he raped. So that is written from a man's point of view- a man who understood the law not only allowed rape, but institutionalized it. If you want an unengaged woman, rape her and she is yours, especially if she did not cry out and doesn't want to be put to death.
And really, when we talk about women in the Bible being forced to marry their rapist, we are primarily thinking about men who have killed her parents in some kind of warfare, and then the man takes the child as a wife, giving the non-Jew no choice in the matter- hence rape takes place. Women were just property, valuable for sex and doing housework.