Why does GOD in the OT command raped women to marry to their Rapist..... why is she punished ?

Question

The rapist has to marry her after paying a fine to her father.......


.

Answer 1

Ahh more dostortions and of what the law actually is!

The reason for it was to PROTECT the women since it would be hard for her to get married after that. So, the rapist was forced to "marry" her giving her full acces to the rights of a married woman such as him being obligated to look afer her, feed her etc. BUT- unlike in a normal marriage- there were no reciprical rights in this case and the woman could demand he divorce her at her whim if she found someone more suitable! In other words- the man effectively became her servant to look after her with no benefits accruing to him, and she was free, while being fully supported by the man, to look for a man more desireable to her! On top of that- when she demanded the divorce, the rapist had to pay her out a full ketubah value of 200 shekalim FOUR TIMES MORE than he had paid the father or she could attach his property and possessions to that value!
edit: Voluntary sex acts between unmarried people caryy NO punishment in the Tanach (what non-Jews call the old testament). Stoning was only for adultery, sodomy, bestiality and incest (when both partners were willing).

Answer 2

The Hebrew word rendered “rape” in your question is taphas; meaning to seize, grab hold of, catch, grasp. It does not equate to rape. So in the King James it reads: “If a man find a damsel . . . and lay hold of her and lie with her . . .” The New American Standard reads similarly, continuing: “and they are discovered.” Notice, “they” and “discovered.” Many people cannot stomach this passage. Admittedly, it seems to be unsympathetic toward women. Can we look at it another way? Is there room to say that it encouraged a high moral standard for both men and women? Let’s reason for a minute . . . Lots of domestic laws in the 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy. Like, the situation where a man no longer loved his wife and then claimed that she had not been a virgin when they married. How callous. Also we have God’s laws concerning adultery and rape. Then we read this passage: “In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.” Deuteronomy 22:28, 29. Is this rape? Uh, more like pressured seduction or fornication or both. If a callous fellow felt free to enjoy intimate relations with a virgin, she would come off the big loser. Not only might she give birth to an illegitimate child (winked at nowadays but terrible then), her value as a bride would be diminished, for just as some have here pointed out, how many male Israelites do you think would want to marry her? You may have folks nowadays who don’t want to get married, but marriage was such a part of life then that, if I recall correctly, there is no word in Hebrew for bachelor. You get married, you have kids; it was axiomatic and the desire of everybody. So what would discourage a man from taking such liberties with a virgin? God’s law would. How so? The Mosaic Law code allowed a husband to divorce his wife for certain reasons. (Deuteronomy 22:13-19; 24:1; Matthew 19:7, 8) But when we consider Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29, it becomes apparent that the option of divorce disappeared after fornication took place. Ah! Hold the reins! This might move a man (or a virgin girl) to resist the temptation to commit fornication. This law would deter immorality – the man or woman would pause sufficiently to weigh the long-term consequences of fornication — having to stay with the other person throughout his life. This also cut down on illegitimacy. Nowadays of course callous men and immoral women don’t think twice about sleeping around. Or producing countless illegitimate babies, or having adulterous affairs. And nothing seems to give them pause about it either, not even the threat of disease. Thousands of years ago, however, the moral standards were actually much higher and humans carried a bit more about each other. God’s law could appeal to the hearts of most. Nowadays, God’s law just appeals to the hearts of a few, I suppose. Hannah J Paul

Answer 3

Because the Bible was rewritten during the very early papal meetings and women were seen as subservient. Think about it, so many Popes back then were married and having offspring 'hand over fist' or in and out of wedlock. The Papacy and male dominated clergy ,have for a long time, proclaimed their superiority over the world and women in particular. Odd when you think that the Catholic church revers 'Mary' so much.

Answer 4

I am so glad that I am a New Testament Christian (like if there where any other) but what I mean is that with Christ grace came into place and that the old testament prophesy became fulfill in Jesus. So, I can learn Lot's of history, examples of godly living, advice etc... from the OT I base my life on the NT.

Answer 5

You know...God, I believe is good. Back in the OT women were important for creating families, for continuing the heritage. It was their culture to start families, have heaps of kids and to produce sons to carry on the family name. They knew this and really wanted kids. You can see this in stories of barren women they're always sad. If a woman was raped then her chances of marriage were pretty slim. It was the culture. So, God wrote a law that would make it possible for the woman to still have a family, to have some semblance of normalcy.

Answer 6

Because women were basically property.
The rapist 'ruined' her father's property, so then had to take the woman as his wife and pay the father compensation for his loss (of a marriageable daughter to sell).
The father wouldn't be able to let her marry anyone else, because she was damaged goods.
The woman had no say in this because she was property.

Answer 7

Up Dtaed for give more glimpses to Old Testaments.

I am not sure about original Zaboor and Taurah, but today’s available copies of so called O.Testaments clearly indicate that woman has no say but to live like property and goods to man.

If you read and analyze today’s versions of O.T., you will witness that in either way woman is looser and man has absolute power on woman.

Women were considered inferior to men:
Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve: "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Living Bible uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.

A man could marry (literally "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

In Numbers 27:8-11, Moses describes the rules of inheritance that God has stated. If a man dies, his son inherits the estate; his daughter gets nothing. Only if there is no son, will his daughter inherit. If there are no children, then the estate is given to the man's brothers; his sister(s) get nothing. If he had no brother, the estate goes to his nearest male relative. "...If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family...."

Jews and Christians equally supposed to follow O.Testaments.

Answer 8

Because feeble minds created the bible. Could you imagine Bush or Pat Robertson creating a "book of law" based on their beliefs? God freaks have always been a little out there.

Answer 9

Becuase women in the Old Testament are recognized as property lacking free will... Their father should benefit from everything regarding her.. even if she's raped...

Answer 10

You have been watching too much Court Television. Force or voluntary sex acts in any form were stoned to death if it was outside of marriage..

Go ahead, buy a new bible!