₦airaland Forum

Popular OAP and leader of the Free the Sheeple movement, Daddy Freeze, has said that rapists marry their victims is in unison with the Bible.

Freeze stated this while reacting to the choice of the Turkish government to introduce a replacement law that will allow men accused of rape, avoid prosecution by marrying their victims. Read here.

Popular OAP and leader of the Free the Sheeple movement, Daddy Freeze, has said that rapists marry their victims is in unison with the Bible.

https://benupdate.com/2020/01/25/popular-oap-and-leader-of-the-free-the-sheeple-movement-daddy-freeze-has-said-that-rapists-marry-their-victims-is-in-unison-with-the-bible/

THIS ONE CAREER DEPENDS ON TRENDS




I don even forget am before , thanks to Turkey




Devil Freez...

Enwhen:
THIS ONE CAREER DEPENDS ON TRENDS
I don even forget am before , thanks to Turkey
Devil Freez...

My people perish for lack of knowledge.
I would have loved it if you were knowledgeable enough to counter or support his position based on the same bible.

But is it really what the Bible says?

Like all biblical law, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reflects God’s character; when we see the meaning of the Law, we see the heart of the Lawgiver. This law describes how the community of Israel responded when an unbetrothed virgin was violated through premarital sexual intercourse.[1]

The verb used to explain what happened to the woman is תָּפַשׂ (tāpas). Tāpas means to “lay hold [of],”[2] or “wield.”[3] Like חָזַק (ḥāzaq, the word for “force) used in vv. 25-27, tāpas can also be translated as “seize.”[4] Unlike ḥāzaq, however, tāpas does not carry the same connotation of force. As one Hebrew scholar explains, tāpas does not, in and of itself, infer assault; it means she was “held,” but not necessarily “attacked.’[5]

There’s a delicate difference between these two verbs, but it makes all the difference. Tāpas is often used to describe a capture.[6] Tāpas also appears in Genesis 39:12; when Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce Joseph, she seized (tāpas) him to wear down his resolve. This is distinct from ḥāzaq, which describes a forcible overpowering. Daniel Block notes that, unlike the law in verses 25-27, this law has neither a cry for help, nor an account of male violence.[7] It’s likely that the woman in verses 28-29 experienced overwhelming persuasion, perhaps an erosion of her resolve, but not necessarily a sexual assault.

This does not mitigate the seriousness of the act. This woman was indeed violated; she was dishonored and humiliated.[8] However, verses 28-29 do not necessarily indicate she was raped. Had the author of Deuteronomy, Moses, (and the Holy Spirit who inspired him)[9] intended to depict this as a sexual assault, it seems unlikely that he would have chosen tāpas instead of ḥāzaq – the verb used just before it. Given the lexical differences between ḥāzaq and tāpas, and how closely they appear in these two consecutive laws, it seems more likely that these two distinct verbs are meant to convey two distinct scenarios.

Further, tāpas does not appear in either of biblical stories describing sexual assault that were written after the Law.[10] When later biblical authors depicted a rape, they used the ḥāzaq (which appeared vv. 25-27) rather than tāpas. We can reasonably conclude that the biblical narrators (and again, the Holy Spirit) knew the difference in meaning between ḥāzaq and tāpas within the context of sexual violence, and they used these verbs with their meanings in mind.[11]

One more detail: Unlike the previous two laws in vv. 23-29, this points out that the man and the woman were caught in the act.[12] Whereas verses 25-27 refer to the man and the woman as separate persons, verses 28-29 refer to them as a unit.[13] One Hebrew scholar sees this detail as another reason to believe vv. 28-29 did not describe a rape, but rather mutual consent.[14]

Based on all the evidence, we can conclude that the unbetrothed virgin in verses 28-29 was not necessarily the victim of an assault. Therefore, to claim that the Bible required a woman to marry her rapist is a misinterpretation – and a misrepresentation – of this law. Again, this is not to say that she was not mistreated or taken advantage of; she most certainly was. Yet, this law does not carry the same connotation of force as the previous scenario in verses 25-27.

For the young woman in Israel, this law ensured that she would not be objectified and discarded. Her seducer was required to make restitution with her father, was compelled to marry her, and was forbidden to divorce her. In a culture where a woman’s marriage equated to her financial provision, this law ensured her security. Further, the woman faced no punitive consequences for being seduced. Assuming the act was, in fact, consensual, she was not shamed and ostracized.

Under Hebrew law, a man was forbidden to exploit a woman as an object of pleasure. He was held accountable publicly for his indiscretion and held responsible for her future wellbeing.[15] In other words, he couldn’t use her and lose her. Far from exploiting or oppressing women, this passage shows that biblical law held men accountable for their sexual behavior

Chuks9000:
My people perish for lack of knowledge.
I would have loved it if you were knowledgeable enough to counter or support his position based on the same bible.

I'll rather remain single than to marry a man that raped me, don't want to relive the experience daily

Oyindidi:
I'll rather remain single than to marry a man that raped me, don't want to relive the experience daily

Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome?.. Most of the captured victims are always raped.


Just pray you don't find yourself in such a messy deal.

yanabasee:
Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome?.. Most of the captured victims are always raped.


Just pray you don't find yourself in such a messy deal.

I don talk my own, I fit put rat poison for him food

Heartbender:
But is it really what the Bible says?

For the young woman in Israel, this law ensured that she would not be objectified and discarded. Her seducer was required to make restitution with her father, was compelled to marry her, and was forbidden to divorce her.

The topic and the lines above from you is in agreement thereby disagreeing with your first comment.

But, I am mightily inspired that you went back to the bible ...
In summary, the fall of Adam in genesis means man's spirit no longer has a relationship/ partnership with God.
Jesus coming is not about do this or that, but that we d products of Adam can be reconnected by to God.

Anyone in God cannot rape.
Anyone in God will pray for a rapist
Anyone in God would not make it sound as if the bible supports rape.

Did you read what I posted? The bible wasn't talking of rape but seduction and sex outside marriage

Chuks9000:
The topic and the lines above from you is in agreement thereby disagreeing with your first comment.

But, I am mightily inspired that you went back to the bible ...
In summary, the fall of Adam in genesis means man's spirit no longer has a relationship/ partnership with God.
Jesus coming is not about do this or that, but that we d products of Adam can be reconnected by to God.

Anyone in God cannot rape.
Anyone in God will pray for a rapist
Anyone in God would not make it sound as if the bible supports rape.