The Bible doesn't say any such thing.
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." -- Deu. 22:28:29, NIV
"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; 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." -- Deu. 22:28:29, KJV
the NIV version is a terrible translation and that is very evident with the following words "and they are discovered". Note the 'they' used indicates mutuality and not 'rape'. The word was likely closer in meaning to 'seduces'.
Not quite; the original Hebrew-Aramaic words were "taphas and shakab", which are "to seize and lay hold of" + "to lie (as in sexual relations)". Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. It also tacitly implies that if they weren't 'found out/discovered' then the admonishments wouldn't apply. The whole thing sounds a bit like a consenting women either isn't 'discovered' and remains silent or, gets busted and 'cries rape' after consent, (thus denying consent after the fact and falsely accusing the man - who earns a death sentence as a result). If the man 'seduced' the woman, (which means to entice, beguile, manipulate), then he either did so with or against her will. IIRC, back then, the woman's family provided a marriage dowry so, the fifty sheckels in silver wouldn't be paid by the seducer, it would've been paid by the bride's family. This discrepency causes doubt about the admonishment's translations.
'Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:
"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV
Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.
Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn't use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.
This is supported by other OT passages. In the places where rape is mentioned none of them use the word taphas with anah. Rather, the authors use the word chazaq with anah to convey this notion'
source:http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
Community Forum
Topic: marry your rapist ??? WHAT!!!!! (Read 5852 times)
July 28, 2009, 02:56:05 pm
