DEUT 22; 28,29
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.
from the bible the way i understand it, it says if a man is caught raping a virgin he must pay her father and then marry her. this seems to me like it would be much more of a punishment for the girl who was raped.
2006-07-12 18:09:27 · 10 answers · asked by locomexican89 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
its from the bible im not changing anything, dont blame me for what it says mx3baby
2006-07-12 18:14:18 · update #1
what woman would still want to be with a man after he raped her?
2006-07-12 18:15:20 · update #2
Ok, this question was really bothering me so I checked every version of the bible I have. Yours is from the King James version. The NIV and NCV and NJKV all call it rape. From what I understand, sex before marriage is a sin, period. Guilty myself. But, I'm taking it as they thought the man knew better and the girl didn't so it was considered rape? Men were to marry virgins but this girl was now defiled (no longer a virgin) so the man who slept with her would need to marry her and never divorce her. ( where the til death do us part comes in) The Life Application Study Bible puts it this way. 28. Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29. he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives. Also look at Deut 22:13-30. I think reading it all the way through makes it easier to understand. During our marriage classes, my now husband and I were made to feel like horrible people because we had both been married before. We were told that we were, in God's eyes, married to the first people that we had slept with and I think that goes along with this passage. It is a sexual morality warning. Basically, sex is or should be an act of commitment to one another. Things haven't really changed. If you notice, when a man has sex outside of marriage, he's "the man". When a woman has sex outside of marriage then she's a "ho" and the only way to stop those thoughts is if she gets married. Either way, I feel that if everyone taught their children this stuff when they were young then our world wouldn't be in such chaos. My life would have been better. I would rather live believing the bible then finding out it wasn't true rather than disreguarding it and then finding out that it was true. I'm glad I found it now before it was too late. Sorry so lengthy but am hoping that it clears it up a little.
2006-07-12 19:18:00 · answer #1 · answered by Jeni 2 · 14⤊ 6⤋
Your question is very interesting and one that has been addressed many times in my home since I was born into a Christian family and my husband is Muslim. We do have several mutual believes but there are many stark differences especially in the way women are treated in the religious forum or just in every day life. While I am told that "this is protecting and honoring the women" I certainly don't see it that, and it's a condescending way of keeping of the females in line. BUT, I am not part of this so I have been told that I just don't understand. More condescending attitude. The actual people in the struggles are the ones that must make the change. Sad but true. It's been that way for ages and will continue. Change comes very slowly too. (Especially when dealing with men!) Those women have my support tho. I no longer go to church because of all the politics there. I know what I believe, and being a nurse and after working in the hospital around cancer patients, I'm pretty sure I've seen more miracles than the average person, so I'm not interested in a preacher telling me what to think.
2016-03-27 03:24:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as gratvol wrote, the woman could choose the marry the person and he couldn't divorce her. Remember, back then it was difficult for a woman to make a living, and having a husband to support her was *essential*. Now, while many people would look past what happened, I think alot of people would rather not marry someone who was raped (for example, b/c of all the emotional baggage she probably picked up). So this poor lady would have to stay single and likely die of starvation! that'd be awful. So the bible gives her the option of marrying this person.
Additionally, if the rapist knows that he might have to marry this girl and face his sin for the rest of his life, that can serve as a MAJOR deterrant to the sin itself.
So, it is actually a rather just and considerate law, imho.
Hope that helped.
2006-07-13 03:58:54 · answer #3 · answered by Indecisive 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
come on, we dont live in those times anymore! Yes it was kinda cruel, but you gotta think about this, survival was the daily goal. People did and practiced wierd things,and believed wierd things. Its like now, the laws are different, but then that was the law. You just couldnt go around bangin' everyone you wanted, especially without consent. You still cant, but then I gues this was thier answer to rape, especially if the woman became pregnant as a result of the rape, I guess it made sense to them that the rapist would have to face what he did wrong and make amends by taking care of the child of this crime. Its strange and cruel, but thats how poeple lived back then, I guess.
2006-07-12 18:19:22 · answer #4 · answered by admyr75 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
anybody who tries to take the bible literally has got to be kidding themselves.
yes that would be a terrible thing for a woman who is raped... but we've done a lot of horrible things to women over the years, have we not? why not analyze the buying and selling of women as sex slaves in general. if you are worried about how women were treated in the past, pick up a history book, not the bible.
2006-07-12 18:16:13 · answer #5 · answered by fatally_yours828 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is because you do not have the background commentary to it.
the first step is that the woman WANTS to marry this guy (for what ever reason) if she dose then as a result of rapeing her he is now forced to marry her and cannot divorce her unless she wants it.
this is a law to preserve the sanctity of the woman not to trap her in a abusive marriage
2006-07-12 18:14:14 · answer #6 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, but back then, like the muslims believe now, it was considered the woman's fault, that she must have enticed him. Besides, women weren't considered people, but property. Aren't you glad that you live now. Unless you are a muslim woman, of course, since under shaharia law, you would be given to your rapist as his property.
2006-07-12 18:14:53 · answer #7 · answered by judy_r8 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yet there are other instances in which men are severely punished for the crime. The "law" and what actually happens are sometimes two different things.
2006-07-12 18:14:32 · answer #8 · answered by jaemers24 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't say she was RAPED... Says she was not BETHROTHED... Bethrothel was a CONTRACT to be married... It's the old "you don't get the milk for free" story... Sorry, dude, you milk the cow.. You bought the cow....
If it was RAPE, he would have been STONED TO DEATH
2006-07-12 18:26:54 · answer #9 · answered by r_u_really_that_scared 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please do not trivialize the Word of God.
2006-07-12 18:13:26 · answer #10 · answered by mx3baby 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋