alBHAGDADI:


Lalasticlala

Isn't this a perfect rebuttal to the thread below which is currently on front page?


https://www.nairaland.com/5130182/daddy-freeze-supports-man-raped

Rebuttal, me ass!

Your view is crap. It is not a suitable view for frontpage to hold!

Una go dey alright las las.

alBHAGDADI:


Lalasticlala

Isn't this a perfect rebuttal to the thread below which is currently on front page?


https://www.nairaland.com/5130182/daddy-freeze-supports-man-raped

It is a shame that your kind of thinking is prevalent within christianity. The lies and illogical positions in your write-up are just too much.

We all know that most of the older translations of the particular verse talk about rape. You are here trying to twist and turn just to paint Daddy Freeze as an ignorant christian.

I am happy that even your fellow christians have pointed out how false you are.

JeromeBlack:



It is a shame that your kind of thinking is prevalent within christianity. The lies and illogical positions in your write-up are just too much.

We all know that most of the older translations of the particular verse talk about rape. You are here trying to twist and turn just to paint Daddy Freeze as an ignorant christian.

I am happy that even your fellow christians have pointed out how false you are.

Rather, the shame is your for saying my Holy God who is a righteous judge once ordered that rapists should be rewarded with their victims.

You can all those Bible translations older than the Long James Version? You are not only ignorant concerning the
scriptures but also not a student of history. They are all modern versions while the KJV was published in 1611.

Mind you, all those you claim are my fellow Christians aren't Christians at all. No Christian will say his Holy and righteous judge of a Father once supported rape. God never changes.

Do you know why an atheist like you support those so-called Christians? It's because they are operating in the flesh like you and Daddy Freeze and can never understand the scriptures.

alBHAGDADI:


how stubborn can your kind be?


Even when shown the multitude of errors contained in these modern Bible versions that deliberately omit key verses and even called Jesus the fallen satan, you still stick to those books. You want to tell me that God doesn't have his perfect word in English that is why so many versions are popping out?

Keeping allowing Satan to deceive you with fake Bibles

You confuse tradition with true worship. Your type are the ones that will say reading bible on an electronic gadget is a sin. No error in your KJV? Read 2Samuel 24 and 1Chronicles 21 in your KJV and see how you have no errors in your KJV.

adelee777:


You confuse tradition with true worship. Your type are the ones that will say reading bible on an electronic gadget is a sin. No error in your KJV? Read 2Samuel 24 and 1Chronicles 21 in your KJV and see how you have no errors in your KJV.

You failed to state which verses

alBHAGDADI:
You failed to state which verses

2 Samuel 24:1 KJV
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1 KJV
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

I don't think the error is from the version. Every version made the same mistake.

alBHAGDADI:


Rather, the shame is your for saying my Holy God who is a righteous judge once ordered that rapists should be rewarded with their victims.

You can all those Bible translations older than the Long James Version? You are not only ignorant concerning the
scriptures but also not a student of history. They are all modern versions while the KJV was published in 1611.

Mind you, all those you claim are my fellow Christians aren't Christians at all. No Christian will say his Holy and righteous judge of a Father once supported rape. God never changes.

Do you know why an atheist like you support those so-called Christians? It's because they are operating in the flesh like you and Daddy Freeze and can never understand the scriptures.

The king James version of the bible also talks about rape. What do you think "lay hold" means in that context?

You are a false preacher.







Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 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;
29 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.

JeromeBlack:


The king James version of the bible also talks about rape. What do you think "lay hold" means in that context?

You are a false preacher.







Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 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;
29 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.

Since when did the phrase lay hold become synonymous with rape? Does that mean Paul was telling us to rape eternal life as seen below?

1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

alBHAGDADI:


Since when did the phrase lay hold become synonymous with rape? Does that mean Paul was telling us to rape eternal life as seen below?

1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

Lay hold in the verse you cited means "seize" or "grasp'.

Example-

"Fight the good fight, seize the eternal life.....



Now, what does it mean to seize or grasp' a woman and sleep with her?

Ogbeni, stop with the twisting of scriptures.

TVSA:


2 Samuel 24:1 KJV
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1 KJV
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

I don't think the error is from the version. Every version made the same mistake.

The question is: What exactly is the error you are pointing out?

JeromeBlack:


Lay hold in the verse you cited means "seize" or "grasp'.

Example-

"Fight the good fight, seize the eternal life.....



Now, what does it mean to seize or grasp' a woman and sleep with her?

Ogbeni, stop with the twisting of scriptures.

The sad part is that you are still using corrupt versions to try to explain King James Version. You are confusing yourself by looking for different words e.g seize grasp, to try to explain what lay hold means.

If you could twist lay hold to mean rape, then how come you don't see the verse in Timothy as rape also?

Seize and grasp are severe words which implies force. But lay hold doesn't imply force, it simply means to lay hold or hold. If I lay hold on to my shirt, does that mean I have raped it? If I lay hold onto riches, dies that imy rape? Lay Hold is simply what it is, not rape. Rape was clearly defined in the book of Deutoronomy. You are the one twisting scriptures and saying that they do not say. In other words, you have clearly stated that God was once in support to rape.

Do you agree that God never changes? If yes, how come you believe he now does.t support rape? Can you see how foolish your stance is which is due to your usage of satan.ic transactions? Also, who will marry the lady who gets raped by four men at the same time? Can you see how foolish that judgment that you think says a woman must marry her rapist is? It only shows such judgment never came from God because he's a righteous and wise God. The false teaching only came from Satan and propagated by folks like you.

alBHAGDADI:


The sad part is that you are still using corrupt versions to try to explain King James Version. You are confusing yourself by looking for different words e.g seize grasp, to try to explain what lay hold means.

If you could twist lay hold to mean rape, then how come you don't see the verse in Timothy as rape also?

Seize and grasp are severe words which implies force. But lay hold doesn't imply force, it simply means to lay hold or hold. If I lay hold on to my shirt, does that mean I have raped it? If I lay hold onto riches, dies that imy rape? Lay Hold is simply what it is, not rape. Rape was clearly defined in the book of Deutoronomy. You are the one twisting scriptures and saying that they do not say. In other words, you have clearly stated that God was once in support to rape.

Do you agree that God never changes? If yes, how come you believe he now does.t support rape? Can you see how foolish your stance is which is due to your usage of satan.ic transactions? Also, who will marry the lady who gets raped by four men at the same time? Can you see how foolish that judgment that you think says a woman must marry her rapist is? It only shows such judgment never came from God because he's a righteous and wise God. The false teaching only came from Satan and propagated by folks like you.

May plenty men lay hold of all the women in your family

JeromeBlack:


May plenty men lay hold of all the women in your family

I wish you the same too.

alBHAGDADI:


Rather, the shame is your for saying my Holy God who is a righteous judge once ordered that rapists should be rewarded with their victims.

You can all those Bible translations older than the Long James Version? You are not only ignorant concerning the
scriptures but also not a student of history. They are all modern versions while the KJV was published in 1611.

Mind you, all those you claim are my fellow Christians aren't Christians at all. No Christian will say his Holy and righteous judge of a Father once supported rape. God never changes.

Do you know why an atheist like you support those so-called Christians? It's because they are operating in the flesh like you and Daddy Freeze and can never understand the scriptures.

1. I certainly don't hold brief for atheists, but it has been my experience in defending or answering for my faith that unapologetically agreeing with the Bible is the safest way to go. When you start making excuses for the Bible or worrying about how other people may receive what it says, I have found that it is easy to end up editing God's words, either by adding to them or by taking away from them.

It may seem as if God was rewarding rapists with their victims if we stand with what the Bible says, but that is because we are judging the past by the present. Historians call that flaw "presentism." In the days in question, marriage was a different sort of business. Consider, for example, that betrothals were treated like already contracted marriages. That is not nearly common today. As far as most people today are concerned, an engagement is little more than an expression of intent.

In Israelite law as given by God through Moses, a rapist was forced to become a responsible husband if he dared to rape an Israelite virgin. Could he be a riff-raff? Not by Israelite law. By Israelite law, every adult male owned their own real estate, and thus could provide for themselves and a family. By Israelite law, irresponsible sons were to be killed upon their parents' testimony. So, there weren't supposed to be any riff-raffs at all. Therefore, any man who committed rape would have been a man of some means, and would automatically acquire the responsibilities of marriage that would be enforced too by Israelite law.

If you are confident in the Bible, you won't need to make excuses for God. Our God is well able to answer for Himself.

2. As for early Bible translations, the first complete translation into the English language is attributed to John Wycliffe in the late 14th century. Before him, there were translations of parts of the Bible into English. After him, William Tyndale did his own work in the 1500s. The King James Bible was made in 1611, as you know. John Wycliffe's Bible survives today. If age is the measure, then that translation would be superior to the KJV. But that is not the case. The KJV is superior to the Wycliffe Bible.

Modern translations, in the same vein, account for some problems in the KJV. The producers of the KJV were restricted to certain material to work with. Today, we have access to better material than those. This is what those who use that translation need to be aware of. This does not mean that any one translation is perfect. There is no perfect translation at all. All those who believe the Bible are best served to compare translations (that is, orthodox, non-special interest translations. Special interest translations like the New World Translation, and the various Roman Catholic versions, are best avoided) in their study. Restricting oneself to one translation can cause the kinds of problems evident in your teachings. The only perfect textual preservation of God's Word was the original Scriptures written by the prophets and apostles. Those do not exist anymore. Existing copies, manuscripts, and translations can be extremely high quality, and in fact mostly are, but none of them is perfect. This is why Bible teachers need to (in addition to being spiritually mature believers who have been properly taught the Bible as a full system of truth) not only know the ancient Bible languages - Biblical Hebrew, Ancient Greek, and Aramaic, but also be skilled in textual criticism. Without these tools, the teacher will really just keep risking the spiritual health of his hearers on the flaws of otherwise excellent translations.

3. As for being fellow believers, to begin with, the Bible teaches that it is only those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ - the God-Man Who died on the Cross for all human sins so that all human beings can be saved from the Second Death - that are Christians. This is the only criterion. There are immature Christians whose behavior and theology are very bad indeed, but they are no less Christians than very mature believers who have attained a very high level of sanctification. This is exactly the same as saying that a crawling infant that cannot speak a single coherent word or act in any kind of admirable way is no less human than a full-grown, highly-accomplished adult. Both are human, although one is clearly a far more effective human than the other.

In addition to that, I don't think that anyone who has commented on your thread said that God once supported rape. I certainly did not say that. It may be a straw man on your part, a misunderstanding - perhaps deliberate, perhaps accidental.

TVSA:


2 Samuel 24:1 KJV
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1 KJV
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

I don't think the error is from the version. Every version made the same mistake.

There is no error here.

Satan often gets special permission from God to harm believers. We see this in the example of Job and King Saul, at least (other examples abound).

In other words, Satan can be a tool in God's Hand for both testing and punishment for His Children. So, both verses are stating the same truth in two different but legitimate ways.

alBHAGDADI:


Since when did the phrase lay hold become synonymous with rape? Does that mean Paul was telling us to rape eternal life as seen below?

1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

As I told you in my first post, Jacobean English was not the same as Modern English although they are very similar to each other. Early Modern English used words in a sometimes significantly different way than we do today.

"Lay hold on/upon" generally implies violence. The only exception that I know of is when it is used in a metaphorical way to indicate determination. This is why Paul's words could be translated that way. You should note that the Christian Faith is always depicted like a war. The Lord Jesus Himself put it this way: the Kingdom of Heaven has been suffering violence since the days of John the Baptist, and the violent take it by force. Paul himself called the faith "the good fight" and spoke of "weapons of warfare" and "the whole armour of God".

So, violence is a very good metaphor for our Faith. That is why "lay hold on" is a good expression to translate what he says here. The use here is not proof that the phrase does not imply force or violence. It is actually proof to the contrary.

Ihedinobi3:

As I told you in my first post, Jacobean English was not the same as Modern English although they are very similar to each other. Early Modern English used words in a sometimes significantly different way than we do today.

"Lay hold on/upon" generally implies violence. The only exception that I know of is when it is used in a metaphorical way to indicate determination. This is why Paul's words could be translated that way. You should note that the Christian Faith is always depicted like a war. The Lord Jesus Himself put it this way: the Kingdom of Heaven has been suffering violence since the days of John the Baptist, and the violent take it by force. Paul himself called the faith "the good fight" and spoke of "weapons of warfare" and "the whole armour of God".

So, violence is a very good metaphor for our Faith. That is why "lay hold on" is a good expression to translate what he says here. The use here is not proof that the phrase does not imply force or violence. It is actually proof to the contrary.

It is good to see refreshing honesty from a Christian.

I'm sorry but the past few weeks almost turned me into an anti-Christian hater. There were numerous falsehoods from pastors put on the front page and many nairaland Christian swallowed these falsehoods like zombies.


As I grow older, i tend to leave people to their beliefs. I am an atheist and I disagree with the bible.....however, it is another thing entirely to deny what is written in the bible.

Ihedinobi3:

There is no error here.

Satan often gets special permission from God to harm believers. We see this in the example of Job and King Saul, at least (other examples abound).

In other words, Satan can be a tool in God's Hand for both testing and punishment for His Children. So, both verses are stating the same truth in two different but legitimate ways.

ONE of my many problems with Christianity. A good God giving permission to an evil spirit to commit evil on the righteous.

Ihedinobi3:

As I told you in my first post, Jacobean English was not the same as Modern English although they are very similar to each other. Early Modern English used words in a sometimes significantly different way than we do today.

"Lay hold on/upon" generally implies violence. The only exception that I know of is when it is used in a metaphorical way to indicate determination. This is why Paul's words could be translated that way. You should note that the Christian Faith is always depicted like a war. The Lord Jesus Himself put it this way: the Kingdom of Heaven has been suffering violence since the days of John the Baptist, and the violent take it by force. Paul himself called the faith "the good fight" and spoke of "weapons of warfare" and "the whole armour of God".

So, violence is a very good metaphor for our Faith. That is why "lay hold on" is a good expression to translate what he says here. The use here is not proof that the phrase does not imply force or violence. It is actually proof to the contrary.

AlBhagdadi, you may also consult the Collins Dictionary online. The phrase is defined there severally as to seize, to grasp, to take possession of, etc. All of these imply force or determination.

JeromeBlack:


ONE of my many problems with Christianity. A good God giving permission to an evil spirit to commit evil on the righteous.

I'm sorry to hear that you have a problem with that. That is why we are all here on Earth: to demonstrate whether we trust God and His Way of doing things or whether we think we or someone else can do better than Him.

I, along with all Christians, believe that God always does the right thing. So, if He uses Satan this way, then it is the right thing to do. I have no doubts about that.

Ihedinobi3:

I'm sorry to hear that you have a problem with that. That is why we are all here on Earth: to demonstrate whether we trust God and His Way of doing things or whether we think we or someone else can do better than Him.

I, along with all Christians, believe that God always does the right thing. So, if He uses Satan this way, then it is the right thing to do. I have no doubts about that.

So we are all man rats in the eyes of your God.

JeromeBlack:


It is good to see refreshing honesty from a Christian.

I'm sorry but the past few weeks almost turned me into an anti-Christian hater. There were numerous falsehoods from pastors put on the front page and many nairaland Christian swallowed these falsehoods like zombies.


As I grow older, i tend to leave people to their beliefs. I am an atheist and I disagree with the bible.....however, it is another thing entirely to deny what is written in the bible.

I congratulate you on your new tendency. It's the right way to go. People are free to believe or disbelieve whatever they want. If they ask questions, it is good to answer to help them make their own decisions or revise them, if they please. Otherwise, better to leave well enough alone.

JeromeBlack:



So we are all man rats in the eyes of your God.

He made us, so if we are, that is what we ought to be.

However, if He could also become one of us and die for our sins so that we don't have to suffer the Second Death, I don't think I could agree with you.

Ihedinobi3:

He made us, so if we are, that is what we ought to be.

However, if He could also become one of us and die for our sins so that we don't have to suffer the Second Death, I don't think I could agree with you.

Wait. You believe that Jesus is God? I thought protestants believe that Jesus was just a special son of God?

JeromeBlack:


The king James version of the bible also talks about rape. What do you think "lay hold" means in that context?

You are a false preacher.







Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 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;
29 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.

Please help me tell the OP that if Deuteronomy 22 v 28 is not talking about rape... then why does Deuteronomy 22 v 29 clearly mention that the lady is humbled after that incident?


Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 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;
29 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.




The funny thing about this stubborn OP is that he thinks the Bible was originally written in King James Version. I have told him to get the Hebrew Bible and convert the words used in that passage to English and see what it means... till date he has dodged that task...

Ihedinobi3:

There is no error here.

Satan often gets special permission from God to harm believers. We see this in the example of Job and King Saul, at least (other examples abound).

In other words, Satan can be a tool in God's Hand for both testing and punishment for His Children. So, both verses are stating the same truth in two different but legitimate ways.

There is error there except if you want to be mischievous in your interpretation. The bible did not say God permitted satan to do it. It was plainly stated in Job what transpired between God and Satan, but in this case, you are just inferring. That is just your own extra-biblical explanation to suit yourself and get your holy book out of the hook. Are you saying everything Satan did in the bible was the work of God?

JeromeBlack:



Wait. You believe that Jesus is God? I thought protestants believe that Jesus was just a special son of God?

I think that there's a lot you don't know.

Ihedinobi3:

1. I certainly don't hold brief for atheists, but it has been my experience in defending or answering for my faith that unapologetically agreeing with the Bible is the safest way to go. When you start making excuses for the Bible or worrying about how other people may receive what it says, I have found that it is easy to end up editing God's words, either by adding to them or by taking away from them.

It may seem as if God was rewarding rapists with their victims if we stand with what the Bible says, but that is because we are judging the past by the present. Historians call that flaw "presentism." In the days in question, marriage was a different sort of business. Consider, for example, that betrothals were treated like already contracted marriages. That is not nearly common today. As far as most people today are concerned, an engagement is little more than an expression of intent.

In Israelite law as given by God through Moses, a rapist was forced to become a responsible husband if he dared to rape an Israelite virgin. Could he be a riff-raff? Not by Israelite law. By Israelite law, every adult male owned their own real estate, and thus could provide for themselves and a family. By Israelite law, irresponsible sons were to be killed upon their parents' testimony. So, there weren't supposed to be any riff-raffs at all. Therefore, any man who committed rape would have been a man of some means, and would automatically acquire the responsibilities of marriage that would be enforced too by Israelite law.

If you are confident in the Bible, you won't need to make excuses for God. Our God is well able to answer for Himself.

2. As for early Bible translations, the first complete translation into the English language is attributed to John Wycliffe in the late 14th century. Before him, there were translations of parts of the Bible into English. After him, William Tyndale did his own work in the 1500s. The King James Bible was made in 1611, as you know. John Wycliffe's Bible survives today. If age is the measure, then that translation would be superior to the KJV. But that is not the case. The KJV is superior to the Wycliffe Bible.

Modern translations, in the same vein, account for some problems in the KJV. The producers of the KJV were restricted to certain material to work with. Today, we have access to better material than those. This is what those who use that translation need to be aware of. This does not mean that any one translation is perfect. There is no perfect translation at all. All those who believe the Bible are best served to compare translations (that is, orthodox, non-special interest translations. Special interest translations like the New World Translation, and the various Roman Catholic versions, are best avoided) in their study. Restricting oneself to one translation can cause the kinds of problems evident in your teachings. The only perfect textual preservation of God's Word was the original Scriptures written by the prophets and apostles. Those do not exist anymore. Existing copies, manuscripts, and translations can be extremely high quality, and in fact mostly are, but none of them is perfect. This is why Bible teachers need to (in addition to being spiritually mature believers who have been properly taught the Bible as a full system of truth) not only know the ancient Bible languages - Biblical Hebrew, Ancient Greek, and Aramaic, but also be skilled in textual criticism. Without these tools, the teacher will really just keep risking the spiritual health of his hearers on the flaws of otherwise excellent translations.

3. As for being fellow believers, to begin with, the Bible teaches that it is only those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ - the God-Man Who died on the Cross for all human sins so that all human beings can be saved from the Second Death - that are Christians. This is the only criterion. There are immature Christians whose behavior and theology are very bad indeed, but they are no less Christians than very mature believers who have attained a very high level of sanctification. This is exactly the same as saying that a crawling infant that cannot speak a single coherent word or act in any kind of admirable way is no less human than a full-grown, highly-accomplished adult. Both are human, although one is clearly a far more effective human than the other.

In addition to that, I don't think that anyone who has commented on your thread said that God once supported rape. I certainly did not say that. It may be a straw man on your part, a misunderstanding - perhaps deliberate, perhaps accidental.

You just said too many words but nothing in them matches with the BIble. This shows that they are words of your own, and such happens when one is trying to justify an evil doctrine which can only be inspired by an evil man or an evil translation. Now let's see how you got it all wrong.

1. You claim that there were no riffraffs neither did Israel have lowlife people. According to you, every adult male had real estates and were okay enough. You speak as if you existed in those day and also as if the Bible clearly said the same thing. If everyone was okay then, how come God ordered that people should ensure they pay tithe so that poor people like widows, orphans etc could feed? Aren't there 18 year old orphans capable of rape? Also, your claim that irresponsible children didn't exist then for there to be rape because parents report then and they are stoned is quite silly. What if a responsible child commits his first after of irresponsibility and it amounts to rape? You even sound as if it was everyone in Israel then that were rich and okay and that the land had no poor men, as if the God we serve today is partial that he blessed them totally in those days unlike today. No bro, they were poor people and lazy people as well, the Bible is full of verses about them. Even Jesus confirmed it when he said we shall always have the poor among us. So your talk of everyone having a real estate is just junk from you and not the Bible.

Now if four men rape a woman, will the four of them marry her? Can you see how silly your understanding of the Bible verse is?

2. John Wycliffe's version was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, that's why it was deemed unreliable and something still inspired by the Catholic Church which as rejected.

Mind you, age matters but what matters more is correctness. I'm glad you admit that KJV is accurate than John Wycliffe's version. Do you know that most of these modern Bible versions claim to be older than the KJV? That's because they say they were translated from manuscripts older than the one KJV was translated from. Guess what? The same Satan corrupting the word of God today was also warned of during the days of Paul and has been doing it since the Garden of Eden. How do we know which version is best? We put then to the test. Read thread below to see how other versions have been corrupting God's word.

https://www.nairaland.com/4957299/bible-sword-butter-knife-why

You claim there's no perfect word of God in English language. This is why I say some Christians are a shame. You mean God who said he will protect his word now no longer can, that's why we don't know which is his perfect word?

Well, he has a perfect word in English and it's the king James Version. Your statement so far is why I call some Christians shame.

OkCornel:


Please help me tell the OP that if Deuteronomy 22 v 28 is not talking about rape... then why does Deuteronomy 22 v 29 clearly mention that the lady is humbled after that incident?


Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 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;
29 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.



The funny thing about this stubborn OP is that he thinks the Bible was originally written in King James Version. I have told him to get the Hebrew Bible and convert the words used in that passage to English and see what it means... till date he has dodged that task...

My regular customer. I was expecting you to jump in when the thread has gotten to page 20, but you decided to surprise me today.

Since when did the word Humble become synonymous with rape? The usage of the word humble is not to connote rape but to show that her pride has been taken. What is her pride? Her virginity is her pride which the man has taken. That single act makes her less desireable in those days because no man wanted to marry a non-virgin. And since the sexual act was not rape but consensual, the man is asked to marry the lady so she won't have difficulty finding a husband.

Don't you know that Satan also has his own Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? Don't you know that that's where all these modern versions got translated from?

Ihedinobi3:

AlBhagdadi, you may also consult the Collins Dictionary online. The phrase is defined there severally as to seize, to grasp, to take possession of, etc. All of these imply force or determination.

grasp and taking possession doesn't mean rape but me taking a woman as mine during intercourse. I possess her and be man over her. Or do you expect me to have sex with her from a distance like with Bluetooth? I simply lay hold of her and be manly. It doesn't mean rape

Ihedinobi3:


In addition to that, I don't think that anyone who has commented on your thread said that God once supported rape. I certainly did not say that. It may be a straw man on your part, a misunderstanding - perhaps deliberate, perhaps accidental.

You guys didn't have to spell it out before one can educe that you mean God once supported rape. Once you know that a lowly man can decide to become in-laws with a king or the high and mighty simply by raping their daughter, then you will see that you clearly stated that God supported rape.

Imagine a lowlife, which existed in the days of Israel, raping your daughter and you are a rich man. Today you would want him killed or jailed. But sadly, you say God said his kind must marry the victim. That means if a lowlife wants to end his misery of poverty, all he some had to do was find a way to rape King David's daughter, and viola he becomes in-laws with a king. This means people can deliberately become rapist just to escape poverty, not mainly because of sexual urge. Can you now see clearly?