God's Favor?
- Thread starter POI
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
The law was given by GOD unto Moses .
It was not man made . And If we simply follow JESUS we would fullfill the law .
An example . Love your GOD with all your heart mind and soul
and your neighbor as your self .
Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you . THERE IS no law against this .
For if we did this , we would not rape , steal , lie , murder , etc .
The law is holy just and good .
Now in the law to live by the letter gave man the right to take life .
But JESUS came to show us , WHO the only ONE was that HAD the right to take life .
An example .
The jews caught a lady in adultery . And they said , master this one was caught n the very act of the adultery
and Moses said such should be stoned .
NOTICE , ALERT , NOTICE that JESUS did not say , OH the law was man made . NO . HE KNEW it was HOLY JUST and GOOD
BUT , GOD alone IS THE ONLY ONE who can judge and take life .
THUS JESUS made a wonderful point . LET he who is WITHOUT SIN amongst you cast the first stone . GOD ALONE is the JUDGE .
And believe me HE WILL judge accordingly . Folks the answer is COME TO JESUS and i mean the biblical one .
And dont make void the law through grace . example . We cant justify homsexuality and say its okay cause we under grace .
NO its sin . But we dont kill or stone gays either . We preach JESUS , and if anyone who claims
to BE a believer tries to justify sin , well we rebuke them and say , NO that is sin and you must cease it .
It was not man made . And If we simply follow JESUS we would fullfill the law .
An example . Love your GOD with all your heart mind and soul
and your neighbor as your self .
Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you . THERE IS no law against this .
For if we did this , we would not rape , steal , lie , murder , etc .
The law is holy just and good .
Now in the law to live by the letter gave man the right to take life .
But JESUS came to show us , WHO the only ONE was that HAD the right to take life .
An example .
The jews caught a lady in adultery . And they said , master this one was caught n the very act of the adultery
and Moses said such should be stoned .
NOTICE , ALERT , NOTICE that JESUS did not say , OH the law was man made . NO . HE KNEW it was HOLY JUST and GOOD
BUT , GOD alone IS THE ONLY ONE who can judge and take life .
THUS JESUS made a wonderful point . LET he who is WITHOUT SIN amongst you cast the first stone . GOD ALONE is the JUDGE .
And believe me HE WILL judge accordingly . Folks the answer is COME TO JESUS and i mean the biblical one .
And dont make void the law through grace . example . We cant justify homsexuality and say its okay cause we under grace .
NO its sin . But we dont kill or stone gays either . We preach JESUS , and if anyone who claims
to BE a believer tries to justify sin , well we rebuke them and say , NO that is sin and you must cease it .
Last edited:
It's not that I would be 'wrong'... You would have to be saying that NIV, among other Biblical translations are also 'wrong.' But regardless, I think you are bypassing an even larger picture. Please see what I stated, all the way back at the end of the original post (i.e.):
a: The father keeps her, and no other man will ever marry her, (because she is not a virgin).
b: Hand her over to her 'rapist', or the one whom 'seduced' her, where the woman is to submit, under the contract of Biblical marriage, (Ephesians 5:22-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:3).
Again, you yourself stated there could exist reasons why she did not scream. I will also add my two cents here:
1. She was chocked until she passed out, or, just plain passed out from terror.
2. She wanted to remain quiet, to reduce further harm and/or to prevent delay from him finishing.
3. She already came from an abusive house herself, where she was already raped, and no longer screams.
4. The male lied to her, by telling her he has her little sister hostage, and will finish her if she does not submit.
etc etc etc
You can try to cherry pick any definition you'd like, for Verse 29. But the rules remain the same.
If she is a single virgin, he is not put to death (regardless of whether or not she screams). He is to pay the father, whether she was willing or not. The law may also order him to marry her, whether he forced himself upon her or not. She has not say in the matter.
Last edited:
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Pilate once asked JESUS , what is truth .
I know my friend . Not to mention its quite clear it came from God .
He instructs the levites as well .
Know? What do we know and what do we live by?
"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Rom 1:17
And faith...?
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Heb 11:1
Plainly, verses 28 and 29 are not speaking about force. The previous verses were clearly speaking of force/rape. She cried out and did not consent. She was not in sin, but his sin was equated with murder and is worthy of death.
In verses 28 and 29, she isn't betrothed and they both have consented (evidenced in that she didn't resist). If they have engaged in sex, they should be married. That's what those verses mean.
In verses 28 and 29, she isn't betrothed and they both have consented (evidenced in that she didn't resist). If they have engaged in sex, they should be married. That's what those verses mean.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
exactly sister . that is right . Read the wording . The verse does make mention of her crying . He takes hold of her
and its Consensual . Look at how the verses above it are written as well .
Because it makes it clear that if a man forces her , Even if her cry is not heard , HE is guilty of death .
SO yep .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Some folks will go to great lengths to make the law look evil . But if we take the time to learn our bibles well
we will find the answers . yep . yes indeed . Let the LORD be praised .
we will find the answers . yep . yes indeed . Let the LORD be praised .
lilygrace
Well-Known Member
Does someone always have to cry or scream for it to count?
LOL.
Please note I'm speaking about single virgins; not engaged virgins. I have been stating this criteria since the OP. Verses 28-29 speak about if she is still single, and also not yet sexually active. She is not yet taken. The father wants her to eventually be taken, so he no longer has to support her financially.
If a male 'lies' with her, either by rape, coercion, blackmail, naivete, or consent; for her, AT WORST, he marries her. In which case, she remains subservient to him for life. She has no say in the matter. The matter is settled by either the law, or the father's consent. She has no say, right?
For her, AT BEST, she never sees him again, the male pays the father 50 units, and is then free. The father might take this deal if the current rate of exchange warrants enough compensation. But the Bible does not account for inflation. Hence, if the father thinks his daughter truly was blackmailed, manipulated, coerced, or even raped, he has a little pickle to contend with... (do not give her away to him or give her away to him). But regardless, like I told you many posts ago. The male is not to die in this scenario. Why? Because he owes the dad 50 units. Many may not have had that much money, and had to work it off over time. Hence, the law states the male pays the dad. At which point, he is then free. Such an occurrence is nothing more than a civil offense, not criminal.
Again, this law looks to be more-so watching out for the father, than that of the victim. Where is her retribution?
Why do I think Verses 28-29 exist?
Like I stated in the OP.
"When this passage was written, women's right's were quite restricted in society. Women needed to marry men, or to remain with their fathers for financial stability. Prior to marriage, the women remained with their father's, where applicable. If a women was known to have relations with a male, prior to marriage, she was considered unworthy of marriage by any other potential mate. And thus, the father could never 'give her away'. And hence, would remain financially responsible for her, for life. A woman's consent, prior to marriage, was likely granted by the father, not the woman. And after marriage, under the contract of Biblical marriage, the woman was then to submit to the husband. Sure, the husband was to fulfill his role in the marriage, but the woman answered to the man. Two notable Verses to reference would be (Ephesians 5:22-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:3). Some would bring up Exodus 22:16-17, as a defense. However, the Verses speak about possible seduction, and not rape. Hence, what constitutes 'rape', verses not 'rape'? And furthermore, was the price, for which the male was to pay, enough to sustain the father's financial obligation to support his daughter for life?"
Last edited:
lilygrace
Well-Known Member
There are a lot of ways of "crying out." When it is a child who is violated, the verses I quoted yesterday in the New Testament would apply. Someone has caused a "little one" to stumble or has offended a little one....woe to that person.
But speaking out, breaking silence once a person feels safer to do so ... the disdain for the person who violated you, emotional distress, and even ways young people act out (such as self harm) speak of a type of "crying out." Their voice may have been silenced when their will was broken, and helplessness turned to self loathing. God knows what's in the heart.
If so, what was the conclusion in that thread? The same as this one, where a couple of Christians do not acknowledge my points?
Are you going to address post #32? You are trying to deflect, using isolated cases of "child rape".
Haha.
If she is a single virgin, he is not to be put to death. He is either 1) told pay the father <and> marry her, (or) 2) just pay the father. If the law or the father opts for the later, he goes free after payment. If the law or the father opts for option 1, the victim remains subservient to the rapist for life.
Thanks
Exactly. And she didn't resist, nor cry out. If it was force/rape, Holy Spirit would have inspired the writer to use another word as in verse 25, which is translated "force" but also could mean to seize upon, conquer, catch, prevail, restrain (you get the idea).
Verses 28 and 29 are talking about 2 consenting unmarried people. She isn't betrothed, so they must marry, having consensually engaged in sex. Now, if she had been betrothed, there would have been another course of action, such as death (as stated in previous verses) ...to put away sin. This is confirmed in the New Testament by Paul.
1 Corinthians 7 (KJV) ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¹ Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ² Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. … ⁸ I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. ⁹ But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
“But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.” — 1 Corinthians 7:36 (KJV)
Those verses are speaking of consensual relations. I've addressed it 2 or 3 times. That is enough. You seem to have something against God and refuse to see the truth. That being the case, I believe I have no further need to discuss it .....with you. I will, however, discuss this with others who are genuinely seeking the truth.
- Status
Similar threads
