GOD did not condone rape. Follow the link below to read an expose on this issue.

[url]apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=2333[/url]

Militant atheists of the 21st century delight in accusing God of condoning the most heinous immoralities. They insist that the God of the Bible, especially of the Old Testament, was a murderous villain guilty of far worse than His human subjects. Richard Dawkins accused God of being a “misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” (2006, p. 31).

One attempt that has been made to bolster these unfounded accusations is to suggest that in the Old Testament God condoned rape. Dan Barker commented: “If God told you to rape someone, would you do it? Some Christians, ignorant of biblical injunctions to rape , might answer, ‘God would never ask me to do that’” (Barker, 1992, p. 331, emp. added). If the honest truth seeker were to ask to see the “biblical injunctions to rape,” he would be struck by the fact that no such injunctions exist.

The passage that is most often used to “prove” that God condones rape is Numbers 31:25-40. In this passage, the young women who were taken captive after Moses destroyed the Midianites were divided between the Israelites and the priests. The priests were given responsibility for 32 of the women. Skeptics often suggest that these women were supplied so that the priests could abuse them sexually and rape them. But nothing could be further from the truth. The skeptic errs greatly in this regard either due to his ignorance of God’s instructions or willful dishonesty.

In Deut 21:10-14, Moses specifically stated what was to be done with female captives: "When you go out to war...and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month;after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife" (emp. added).

It is important to understand that God has never condoned any type of sexual activity outside of a lawful marriage. The only way that an Israelite would be morally justified in having sexual intercourse with a female captive was if he made her his wife, granting to her the rights and privileges due to a wife. Notice that the Israelite male could not “go in to her” until she had observed a period of mourning and cleansing, and he could only "go in to her" with the intent being her husband.

So that's how those Chibok girls ceased to be raped immediately after their abductors wedded them.

Meaning there is nothing wrong with Mr B killing Mr X in battle, but it's a sin for Mr B to have sex with the Mr X's daughter, Xx, captured during the battle, without giving her a month to mourn her father Mr B killed.

Now as a captive she is to be treated as a wife, meaning marital rites must be observed, who is giving Xx in marriage?

finofaya:
So that's how those Chibok girls ceased to be raped immediately after their abductors wedded them.

Exactly, those girls were never raped, as wives they were only performing their conjugal obligations.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/rape-in-the-bible/

randomperson:
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/rape-in-the-bible/

Judeo-Christian apologists have defended the barbaric law by saying that 1) The victim could elect to not marry her rapist, 2) The victim’s father could choose to refuse to marry the victim to her rapist, and 3) Forcing a victim to marry her rapist was a form of social and economic protection for the victim since no man in ancient Jewish culture would marry a girl sullied by such a violation at the hands of another man.

These defenses are easily invalidated.

First, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the victim has a choice.

Second, if the choice is left to the father, a woman or girl still might be forced to marry her rapist.

Third, the notion that she is being protected falls apart in the modern example of sixteen-year-old Amina Filali of Morocco, who killed herself with rat poison in March after being forced to marry her rapist according to Moroccan law. If you don’t think that at least a sizeable minority of women in Filali’s situation would kill themselves, please see a psychiatrist.

Filali’s choice was rational: Every day for the rest of her life she would have been forced to share the bed of the man who had raped her, and as her legal husband, he would have had the right to repeat the initial act thousands of times over hundreds of hours. This young girl, whose “husband” also beat her for several months, would have borne children in danger of physical or sexual abuse. Innumerable Hebrew women and girls suffered this exact fate thanks to Deuteronomy 22:28-29

randomperson,

The word used here, translated as rape, is the Hebrew word shakab, meaning lying down.Taphas is the Hebrew word for catching, handling, taking hold, and isn't used. If you look at most other translations it merely says "a virgin, who is not
betrothed, and he lays hold of her and lies with her." Where in the verse does it say the intercourse was forced? The verse even ends with "and they were found". It doesn't say he was caught, THEY were caught. This shows that they were engaging in fornication, not rape. This made them have to get married because the woman was not even previously betrothed.

Evilbible has been debunked conclusively. Follow the link below.
[url]debunkedevil..com/2009/10/rape-in-bible.html[/url]

DoctorAlien:
randomperson,

The word used here, translated as rape, is the Hebrew word shakab, meaning lying down.Taphas is the Hebrew word for catching, handling, taking hold, and isn't used. If you look at most other translations it merely says "a virgin, who is not
betrothed, and he lays hold of her and lies with her." Where in the verse does it say the intercourse was forced? The verse even ends with "and they were found". It doesn't say he was caught, THEY were caught. This shows that they were engaging in fornication, not rape. This made them have to get married because the woman was not even previously betrothed.

Wrong translation is now the excuse. That was how an apologist lied that the word for slave in the English translation was mistakenly used, he said the right translation was servant until we looked it up and discovered that the apologist lied the real word use in the original Hebrew was slave and most English translation rightly translated it as slave.

Even at that you are just trying to justify nonsense. If we are to go by the rubbish the chibok girls that were married off by BH are not being raped because afer all they were married. You are a sick human being.

DoctorAlien:
In Deut 21:10-14, Moses specifically stated what was to be done with female captives: "When you go out to war...and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month;after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife" (emp. added).

It is important to understand that God has never condoned any type of sexual activity outside of a lawful marriage. The only way that an Israelite would be morally justified in having sexual intercourse with a female captive was if he made her his wife, granting to her the rights and privileges due to a wife. Notice that the Israelite male could not “go in to her” until she had observed a period of mourning and cleansing, and he could only "go in to her" with the intent being her husband.

Going by your stupidity BH are not wrong for abducting the chibok girls since they were married to them. The girls were captured during a holy war against the infidels. No wonder people like William Craig said they don't want to defend OT morality.