RAPE In The Bible [CW]

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Absolutely excellent clip!

[@DeepDrinks]

Glad you think so brother

[@elmoworld850]

@7:36 Ironically, I remembered learning about a female painter from the renaissance in my art history class. She got 🍇by her mentor. She demanded that her mentor marry her, but he refused. So then, Her and her dad decided to sue the mentor. I thought that was so bizarre. My guess is that some did want to marry their grapeist because once they were "tainted", they were no longer eligable to get married. That mentality is pretty sad if you ask me.

[@FruityHachi]

nowadays the mentality is pretty similar, many women stay with an abusive partner and have kids because of societal pressure to have a partner and to reproduce, and the society often doesn't consider something to be abuse if it's not extreme, and women who don't tolerate lighter abuse are shamed for not "trying harder to make a relationship work" and shamed that they're be "lonely cat ladies and die alone"

[@gurgleblaster2282]

Yeah it's pretty messed up. I find it ironic as well because there are cultures throughout history that don't have that specific baggage that would have been considered "savage" by those same European cultures.

[@elmoworld850]

@@gurgleblaster2282 Oh really? Damn!

[@vidfreak56]

Well if this guy was rich and the woman is entitled to some of that then it makes perfect sense. Perhaps she felt that it would do her career a favor by marrying him. So in a sense she uses him the same way he used her.

[@markcostello5120]

Dr Josh made an interesting point that I can remember someone arguing in comments of another video about how we can't judge people then by our standards today. Except we do that all the time that's how we recognize that laws need to be changed or updated.

[@barpsychological099]

Not in the case of morals. Yes, charging Hippocrates for not being able to cure cancer is obviously stupid - ancient doctors had no clue how to cure it due to their technological level. I mean, even science itself as a thing was barely there at the time. There is a reason why some illnesses we could easily heal now were a doom in pre-antibiotic times. We don't judge our ancestors for things they actually were not able to achieve. But in the case of moral obligations? Basic empathy? Is it really THAT hard NOT to RAPE other people, especially your own daughters and wife? Not to beat your own child? What were those people so drastically lacking, so they were not being able to stop these things in their own communities AND in themselves? Nothing. They were people just like us. So, yeah, I'm gonna judge.

[@DeepDrinks]

I think it only falls apart if you believe Morality comes from an unchanging God

[@OceanusHelios]

I can definitely judge a bunch of illiterate, mysoginistic, hateful, wife beating, child graping, murderous egotistical, ignorant, uneducated, pompous charlatans from 5000 years ago just like I can judge Adolf Hitler.

[@MrEmpireBuilder0000]

Biggest thing one notices is the 10 most important laws... and the 600 others in the bible, never forbid rape, spousal abuse or child molestation. Imagine that.

[@dumbcat]

if you can follow the first 10 laws, you are unlikely to be the kind of person who would be involved in the other offenses

[@scambammer6102]

@@dumbcat bullshit. nothing in your silly "10 commandments" comes close to addressing any of those things.

[@markcostello5120]

@@dumbcat I'm not sure that follows. A pedophile isn't also a murderer. isn't also an idolator (3 or 4 of the first ten laws are about idolatry). isn't also a thief. isn't also..

[@markcostello5120]

10 "Thou shalt not covet". Women and children were seen as property. At least as a strict reading that does cover it. There are also some bible passages about what not to do with step daughters but those make it pretty clear if you do, it's the girls fault. Of course there's no mention AFAIK about child slaves so a pedophile could have as many child sex slaves as they want.

[@scambammer6102]

@@markcostello5120 no that doesn't "cover it". First off, you are selectively ignoring MOST of the 10th commandment. Second, "covet" has nothing to do with it, unless you define "covet" to mean everything a person could desire, which means that literally everything on earth is prohibited. think. better.

[@I-AmTheLiquor]

Talk about a powerhouse! It amazes me that we have access to this information for free. Baffling. Well done, much thanks to each of these individuals.🤝🏼👌🏼

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

Yeet! Yeet! Well Put, Yeet! 👍

[@jrojala]

Wow! Thanks for sharing this, I’m passing it on to my friends!

[@BobSmith-ew5oi]

Amazes me that many apologists and callers to talk back claim things were different then .But if god is forever unchanging and originally condoned slavery and sexual slavery just by that fact he must stand by his original values while mankind has morally advanced him enough to find his laws immoral puts him in a hopeless corner cannot escape from.

[@johnhoran9840]

Where in the Scriptures does the Lord say that slavery is a good thing?

[@GutsStan]

@@johnhoran9840No where. It actually in one way or another teaches the opposite which is why the Bible directly inspired abolitionists, and why slave masters suppressed and butchered scripture.

[@johnhoran9840]

@@GutsStan Absolutely.

[@GutsStan]

@@johnhoran9840 Another fact that directly goes against these absurd claims is that in the Roman Empire Christianity was most popular among slaves and the lowers class in general. It is historically demonstrable that the Bible essentially lead to the death of slavery in Roman lands post fall, hence serfdom to replace it. The same thing can be said if the U.S. Why would slaves like a religion with teachings and sacred texts justifies their mistreatment? Why did Paul tell slaves to get free if possible?

[@johnhoran9840]

@@GutsStan The enemies of the Gospel will lie about it until they're blue in the face. Anything to try and bring reproach upon the Lord Jesus.

[@morlewen7218]

Regulations like Deut 21.10-14 open the doors widely for sexual abuse.

[@jamesmabry5776]

FACT: Deut 21. 10-14 does not endorse or justify sexual abuse. Prove me wrong.

[@dana4801]

@@jamesmabry5776says the capturer is allowed to take advantage of a captive woman and make her his wife, but if the capturer isn’t satisfied he may let her go, but can’t sell her since he already raped her.

[@morlewen7218]

​@@jamesmabry5776 The regulation condones sexual abuse. According to Deut 20 Israel had to kill all male inhabitants of cities refusing to surrender. All female inhabitans were plunder in addition to livestock and other fortunes: "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies." Soldiers were allowed to use the plunder. Deut 21 kicks in at the aftermath of such raids. Traumatized and horrified women were herded together and soldiers could pick their personal plunder by marrying them in the beginning. The captives were too traumatized to give any consent to any action and were not able to exercise free will. Mutual consent or even mutual attraction were also not required. Only the man has to be attracted to the woman. The captive was dragged to the home of the new husband isolated from other captives stripped from all things reminding her of her origin. Humilated by shaving the head and cutting nails. Do you really think such traumatized women had nothing better to do than dreaming of marriage and intercourse with the murderer of their fathers, husbands, and brothers? The marriage was in most cases forced and the subsequent interrcourse. I am asking myself whether the 30 days period was used to exclude a pregnancy, too. In verse 14 (" If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her") the husband is granted the right to let the wife go if she pleases him any longer. The wife has not the same right. She is not allowed to leave when the huband do not please her. A very telling detail. The regulation was installed to have intercourse with female captives under the veil of religous etiquette since fornication was forbidden. But marital sexual abuse is still sexual abuse.

[@darthvirgin7157]

@@jamesmabry5776 you’re a theist APOLOGIST which makes you a LIAR. that’s proof.

[@juanausensi499]

@@jamesmabry5776 It endorses forced marriage. I'm sure you can imagine what comes next.

[@pragmaticcrystal]

Super Panel💯

[@kariannecrysler640]

💯 All my favorite Biblical scholars in one place! Way too short though. I could have listened for hours!

[@pragmaticcrystal]

@@beemixsylove you Bee 💯

[@joshuaokoro-sokoh2993]

8:29 In those scenarios, switch raping a woman with damaging a car and every thing still tracks.

[@entropytango5348]

So good to hear sensible minds.

[@jmdsservantofgod8405]

Yes bad things are recorded and reported in the Bible. It doesn’t mean God endorses them! It doesn’t mean only God’s people did them! The lesson is to know we can’t match the glory of God and need a savior!

[@stefannydvorak7919]

A lot of these bad things were directly instructed by the Lord Himself.

[@GutsStan]

@@stefannydvorak7919Like what?

[@TheIceman1668]

Thoroughly enjoyable.

[@DeepDrinks]

Thanks

[@NickVanderLaan7]

Many dynamics you missed! 1. Israelite men are to guard their daughters. 2. The man better be sure he can financially take care of the woman for the rest of his and her life for the rest of their lives.

[@gabriellynch2764]

Less than 10k views?! This is undervalued.

[@lh1673]

I deeply regret respected and praised this book😅

[@alicedeen720]

Overall the Bible is full of vile verses. People need to grow up and put this nonsense away for the useless dogma that it is.

[@gedenironald8635]

I am a Christian from South Africa and I became a Christian in high school, just like so many people, we become Christians for the love of God and his mercy but we do not realize that Christianity just like Islam is an evil religion, what we must not do is confuse the religions with God our creator.

[@justchilling704]

“Evil verses” you’ve demonstrated the lack of in depth thinking you’re willing to employ. “Verses” weren’t a thing until recent centuries, the Bible is primarily a collection of narrative books, key words books, not some book full of little nuggets or quotes from God Semite authors. So yes there are plenty of evil verses, but saying the Bible is therefore evil, is illogical unless it’s prescribing for people to do evil. You’d be pretty crazy to claim that bc the Bible has verses where horny rapist try to rape some angels that’s somehow the Bible supports this by recording. Edit: But that’s basically what you’re saying.

[@justchilling704]

@@gedenironald8635Then you’re not a Christian, and you’re also perhaps gullible?

[@scambammer6102]

@@justchilling704 or you could have learned how to write an English sentence

[@justchilling704]

@@scambammer6102 What?

[@TurkPowers]

This was good. Cheers.

[@evelynsaungikar3553]

In the Bible, rape is a property crime. The victim, is the man who owns the woman or child who was raped.

[@scambammer6102]

it isn't a crime at all, it's a contract

[@reynellfreeman8761]

@@scambammer6102 no it's straight up a crime in the bible

[@SurgeryIsWoke]

This is the type of content that gets buried because we live in a clown world where people need to perform religiosity to virtue signal for politics

[@jmdsservantofgod8405]

Hey everyone! Find a bible study in your area!

[@dumbcat]

it can be argued that everything changed after Jesus. He did work on the Sabbath which was considered a crime. he dined with sinners. He stopped a woman from being stoned to death. He called out religious leaders and called them vipers. He went into the temple with a whip and kicked over the merchants' tables who were selling goods for a profit on the temple grounds. Jesus even told the religious leaders if they wanted to see God they were looking at Him which they believed was a 'crime' punishable by death.

[@milascave2]

dumb: However, Christians still pick Old Testament rules when it suits them.

[@justchilling704]

You’ve already lost bc you conceded to their position they’re incorrect and anti-Christian. And btw Jesus followed the Mosaic covenant perfectly. Edit: It should also be noted that the Mosaic law, isn’t as much about sin as it is ritual purity. Both play a role.

[@scambammer6102]

which jesus? there's about a dozen of them in the NT

[@justchilling704]

@@scambammer6102 I seriously hope you’re joking. Edit: If not it’s clear you’ve gotten your info from sh1tty sources.

[@scambammer6102]

@@justchilling704 props on failing your IQ test

[@TexxGamingYT]

This is really good. Just goes to show what was acceptable in their time.

[@LoveProWrestling]

It's still in the bible. They think it is still acceptable now as the true word of god.

[@ariessun7273]

@@LoveProWrestling True words. that proves this is the word of man

[@Red22762]

I would like to see these scholars debate Sam Shamoun on this subject!!!!!

[@DeepDrinks]

What are his credentials? I might be able to set something up.

[@justchilling704]

@@DeepDrinksDoes Sam need professional credentials to be valid in his claims or views? Don’t see how any credentials are needed for him to refute the absurd claims made in this video.

[@scambammer6102]

@@justchilling704 "Don’t see how any credentials are needed" lol so he doesn't know jack. google says he is a christian apologist and is obsessed with penis size

[@justchilling704]

@@scambammer6102 ???

[@OceanusHelios]

I'm beginning to suspect the ancient definition of rape was when another man used your 'property' without your consent. It likely had no sentiment about compassion or empathy for the victims as the basis for it being a crime. It had to do with the feelings of the slave owner / master and how his 'rights' were infringed.

[@carolinpurayidom4570]

The law wasn't so much that the rape victim had to marry the rapist but rather the rapist had to marry her if thats what the father and victim consented too because in that time her virginity being taken ruined her chances of a good marriage and hence socio-economic security once the father dies since in those day they wanted a virgin for the sake of knowing that the child is theirs for certain. It was providing for the victim who would be left in a pickle after this and also compensating for the loss of the father if the father didn't consent to this marriage then the rapist will have to pay the bride price still. This law while written inspired by the divine principle of providing for the vulnerable and needy and punishing the wrongdoer it is also written by flawed men who were trying to find an appropriate solution to a problem presented by their society and this was the best they could come up with same with other questionable laws and also the perspective of rape clearly came from a flawed human perspective.

[@OceanusHelios]

Sounds like too much sympathy for the devil there. The criminal is not punished in any way. What is preserved in that approach is women still remain a commodity. And modern day people exalt and pay deference to this way of thinking and we are supposed to respect it? The solution found was inappropriate because the societal structure was inappropriate. Nope. I won't. It did not have to be that way. I will not make excuses for the people of that time nor their society. This was the group that claims to be the most knowledgable about some divine magical sky daddy and had all of the wisdom and yet they couldn't handle any afront to the feelings of their priests or the men in their society. The alternative approach is that the rapist could have his land, his cattle, and all of his property seized and it could be given to the victim. Easy peasy. It wasn't "flawed" human frailty or anything of the sort. It was inconvenient to look at it that way because that would imply women were real people. There is no "flawed" or frail to it. There is no "not enough resources to go around" because clearly the rapist had some kind of thing strengthening him that he was living by. And women of the time did have skills that were in need and utilized. A victim could open up a textiles shop with the proceeds from victim compensation. But that would mean that women had to be treated like people. Of course there was "no way out" for a victim if the society never allowed a way out. But that is the thing, isn't it? The solution proposed wasn't what was required but the one that was the least trouble for the men. The bible is full of that kind of nonsensical favoritism at the expense of any actual justice of reparation from crimes. And you do not need to have modernity for that to have been possible. Their "flawed human perspective" was not flawed but utterly selfish and self serving. Excuses were made. From the "flawed human perspective" of the man in charge, he got something out of it and profited monetarily for his daughter getting violated. And since he was in charge and owned everything including her, he could decide her fate. This is a classic example of lazy, intimidated men who are so cowardly they can't accept any challenges to their authority or rights that they gave unto themselves. And they found that authority through a magical sky daddy that other men made up. What is so damned divine about a magical sky daddy that somebody came up with in their imagination? And how does that give anybody the authority or give any justification for all the excuses made? Even in ancient times there was always more than one path that could be taken. Of course those in power would choose the path most likely to cement in their authority, profit them more, and keep the underclass (women in every case) down. AS long as people keep believing in magical sky daddies and holding these appalling stories sacred the progress of society will stagnate. There is one truth about society: when there is a will there is a way. This could have been dealt with in so many ways and the worse one was chosen for reasons that benefited certain individuals. The "divine" as you call it was nowhere to be found. It would have been divine if they would have pulled their heads out of their butts for sure. Penalizing the criminal and paying damages to the victim would have been a good start. So much for all this holiness. Even in that day and age a twelve year old could have produced a better solution. As far as the pregnancy thing goes, that was due to being hung up about who the father was. Why is that? Is not a child still a child by any father? It comes down to inheritence and who gets what and the man somehow feeling cuckolded by another man. It is not about the woman in any way. It is not about the child's welfare or future in any way. It is about the man's feelings. His agrandized rights he gave himself because he is the one always talking about his ridiculous made up magical sky daddy that doesn't exist anywhere except in his own head.

[@teacake6941]

I know others will say this but McClellan point about consent only applies to poor women. Rich women always had more leverage to exercise consent.

[@scambammer6102]

eh you are talking about a tiny percent of the population, and even that is doubtful.

[@JLCProductions1976]

Glad to hear that Josh (@DigitalHammurabi) is willing to make distinctions (THEY didn’t consider X to be Y, but WE consider X to be Y), but that fails to actually explain the difference or why OUR beliefs about X being Y is correct and THEIRS is wrong. Moreover, it confuses ADDRESSING a particular behavior in law/legal precedence with an endorsement of a behavior. It’s similar to why, on certain highways, there are Maximum/Minimum speed limits, or certain vehicles may be prohibited from operating in those places. Also, David DID NOT "r*pe" Bathsheba, not by our or ancient standards.

[@mychalbridgemon9148]

Sorry for possibly a stupid question, but does this channel have a "presently" active discord? Or is it just mostly YT only?

[@elkeism]

IMO these scholars AND apologists have it wrong: Strength in numbers was tantamount; especially after a war when numbers have significantly dwindled. Strength in numbers was insurance against not only their own annihilation (a constant threat) but predation as well, particularly amongst the old and infirm. There's a verse about finding a maid in "the field" were a man was free to make her a wife (no consent apparently) BUT if in the field means homeless, (versus out for a walk) and thus, likely not to survive, then the context changes significantly.

[@scambammer6102]

making excuses for rape

[@elkeism]

@@scambammer6102 your enemy-free privilege is showing!

[@scambammer6102]

@@elkeism derp. your hypocrisy is showing.

[@elkeism]

@@scambammer6102 AANNNDDD- like-wise!

[@kellyfoster1377]

I couldn't finish this video and only got halfway due to the amount of laughter about the subject of rape. One speaker in particular kept laughing when others were speaking and I just didn't find it funny when the subject matter is so serious. I came here looking for answers about the bible and just found people who joked about rape.

[@GutsStan]

I’m suspicious of all these dudes especially Bowen he’s shown his true colors on a few occasions.

[@julianmarsh8384]

I wonder how some Christians will respond to this. I have heard them say, "Slavery in the Bible? Well, you just don't understand what slavery means in the Bible!" Now maybe we will hear we don't understand what rape means in the Bible...

[@GutsStan]

There was no slavery to Hebrews especially not chattal slavery. As for rape it is condemned in the Torah.

[@julianmarsh8384]

@@GutsStan You need to read you Bible.

[@GutsStan]

@@julianmarsh8384I’ll say it again, there was no slavery in the Bible or in Hebrew society especially not in the sense of recent western slavery. Ebed is somewhere between slave and servant it’s not a perfect one to one. Stop being ignorant, and intellectually lazy.

[@wolfos420]

Do A Comment Too! . . . . . Fore The Great Algarithmo hungers for interactions. Thus, punishing those like buttons with your preasure is the divine likeness that is wanted by The Great Algarithmo.

[@kariannecrysler640]

😂 fun

[@pragmaticcrystal]

😁

[@DeepDrinks]

Lol

[@wayneburchell6346]

If you are going to discuss this topic, at least read the passages rather than vaguely remember them.

[@Miguel09z]

Going to simplify things as it seems a lot of people don't even know or acknowledge Exodus 22: 16-17 which is the same exact law that Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 repeats as it repeats all the laws mentioned in Exodus. People refer to Deut 22: 28-29 without acknowledging that Exodus 22: 16-17 lays out Deut in detailed context and not this "forced to marry their attacker" idea coming from a lack of detail in Deut. Exodus 22: 16-17 16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. For the sake of argument, let's go ahead and state that both Exodus 22: 16-17 & Deut 22: 28-29 mean rap3. Now, anyone who knows the bible enough, knows that the two passages are the same law as all of the laws are repeated between the two books. So lets say it means rap3, and let's take this idea to its logical conclusion. The outcome of the scenario would therefore play out as so. The attacker victimizes the unmarried virgin and they are found out. He then must go to the father and it is the father who decides whether or not he will allow his daughter to marry the man who victimized her. Now given that its supposedly rap3, I guess people who are saying it is indeed a rap3 scenario believe that it makes logical sense that the father, if this scenario happens, would be okay with his daughter marrying her attacker... Therein lies the issue with that logic that needs further review. There is absolutely no record of this situation recorded in the bible during the first covenant. So people are believing a scenario, not because it is recorded in the bible, but because of an interpretation that if played out makes no sense for a father to be okay with the attacker marrying his daughter. So either the passage means rap3 and therefore makes no sense due to the logical outcome, or it was consensual and thus makes sense for the couple to go to the father and await for his decision on if he will give his daughter's hand in marriage... Do we have an idea of how Israel viewed rap3? Yes, look at the reaction that Jacob and his sons had when Jacob's daughter Dinah was rap3d in Genesis 34. Israel, without a doubt had the same disposition towards rap3 and thus it makes no sense that a father would be okay with his daughter marrying her attacker. Now if someone wants to argue that the choice should not be up to the father but to the woman herself, then that argument can be had. But that would be a pointless argument because it is 2 completely different points in the timeline of this world. We have practices that would not be accepted in other points in time and likely even in the future. So how could we be such a special point in time that our practices and customs are somehow the best for a society? (Rhetorical)

[@mychalbridgemon9148]

Exactly! Scholars are not infallible! They are not above error. You hit things right on the head. I never understood how or why people actually think the passage means what they think it does when Exodus explains what is actually going on.

[@Miguel09z]

@@mychalbridgemon9148 Well, don't be so quick. In all honesty, I have grace over the topic when it is discussed by anyone, scholar or not because I too once believed it was about rap3 because of the people that taught that it was. I never actually studied it in depth for myself. So I don't fault people who think it is rap3 and I do understand their logic behind thinking that way. But this is why people, when discussing matters they have a obvious bias to must therefore put in the study and effort to actually understand something without any bias. And its fine to have bias, but if it gets in the way of facts or anything of the like, then its best not to be so quick to assume you are right and the other is wrong otherwise that's just showing arrogance and foolishness. I would never, argue/debate over a topic so openly and quickly if I have a bias towards it. I would sit and listen to the person and try and learn and understand their point(s) completely and ask questions. And after I have had some time to study it, I would then come back and continue the discussion or debate after putting away my biases for the conversation. That's how a person learns things that contradict their current understanding. If a person is not willing to do this then they should not be involved in such conversations.

[@darthvirgin7157]

@@Miguel09z please define rape.

[@aralornwolf3140]

You deliberately left out the context. Deuteronomy 22:1-21 (New International Version) 13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. Let's get to the part about rape... Deuteronomy 22:23-29 (New International Version) 22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. So no... it's not from Exodus. Don't _lie_ to us. Don't bear false witness about your own religious texts. There is a clear difference between a man's wife, a man's betrothed, and a man's daughter. If another man rapes the daughter, then the man marries her. If you disagree... let's look at the Torah. (from isreal bible website) 22If a man is found lying with another man's wife, both of them-the man and the woman with whom he lay-shall die. Thus you will sweep away evil from Yisrael. כבכִּי־יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שֹׁכֵב עִם־אִשָּׁה בְעֻלַת־בַּעַל וּמֵתוּ גַּם־שְׁנֵיהֶם הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִם־הָאִשָּׁה וְהָאִשָּׁה וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל׃ 23In the case of a virgin who is engaged to a man-if a man comes upon her in town and lies with her, כגכִּי יִהְיֶה נער [נַעֲרָה] בְתוּלָה מְאֹרָשָׂה לְאִישׁ וּמְצָאָהּ אִישׁ בָּעִיר וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ׃ 24you shall take the two of them out to the gate of that town and stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry for help in the town, and the man because he violated another man's wife. Thus you will sweep away evil from your midst. כדוְהוֹצֵאתֶם אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֶל־שַׁעַר הָעִיר הַהִוא וּסְקַלְתֶּם אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ אֶת־הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] עַל־דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־צָעֲקָה בָעִיר וְאֶת־הָאִישׁ עַל־דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר־עִנָּה אֶת־אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ׃ 25But if the man comes upon the engaged girl in the open country, and the man lies with her by force, only the man who lay with her shall die, כהוְאִם־בַּשָּׂדֶה יִמְצָא הָאִישׁ אֶת־הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] הַמְאֹרָשָׂה וְהֶחֱזִיק־בָּהּ הָאִישׁ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וּמֵת הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־שָׁכַב עִמָּהּ לְבַדּוֹ׃ 26but you shall do nothing to the girl. The girl did not incur the death penalty, for this case is like that of a man attacking another and murdering him. כוולנער [וְלַנַּעֲרָה] לֹא־תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר אֵין לנער [לַנַּעֲרָה] חֵטְא מָוֶת כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָקוּם אִישׁ עַל־רֵעֵהוּ וּרְצָחוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כֵּן הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה׃ 27He came upon her in the open; though the engaged girl cried for help, there was no one to save her. כזכִּי בַשָּׂדֶה מְצָאָהּ צָעֲקָה הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] הַמְאֹרָשָׂה וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיעַ לָהּ׃ 28If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, כחכִּי־יִמְצָא אִישׁ נער [נַעֲרָה] בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ׃ 29the man who lay with her shall pay the girl's father fifty shekalim of] silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her. כטוְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף וְלוֹ־תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ לֹא־יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָה כָּל־יָמָיו׃ So... it's there for all to see... go ahead, use Google Translate although it's not perfect... it gets the point across. So, please, please, just accept that in _your_ religion it's perfectly okay to make an unwilling child your wife if you're willing to pay the bride-price!

[@Miguel09z]

@@aralornwolf3140 please take your bias elsewhere. For one, just about every honest or informed person, scholar or not, knows the NIV translation has numerous errors in the OT and thus is not used except for the NT. So please correct yourself as the previous passages have nothing to do the other laws given as they are their own laws as separate scenarios. As mentioned, Deuteronomy is a repeat of the laws in Exodus and that is fact that any bible scholar or average person can see, if there's something you seriously need to google, it's that. Jumping on google right now will literally tell you that, unless you're going to lie or tailor your google inquiry to fit your desire. Based on your bias, I wouldn't be surprised. Nice copy and pasting things and trying to appear like you know what you're saying. Don't parrot things you pulled from someone or something without knowing what you're talking about. Also, a child? Look up anachronism, you just committed anachronism to the word child and butchered the passage(s). How dishonest and low can you possibly be to even comment such things because of your bias? That's rhetorical by the way. The very fact you refuse the fact that anyone with common sense and or uses google can find out, that is, the laws in Deut are repeated in Exodus with addition to the 10 commandments given in Deut. You refusing this fact already tells me enough about your intentions here. Literally anyone can go to google and find out about Exodus and Deuteronomy.

[@zachzednik1804]

At no point in the Bible does it say Bathsheba was graped. By the wording of Samuel it only said that David slept with her not giving any specifics about how David managed to do it. With the Bible you can’t infer intent on things unless stated anywhere you can in some cases but this is not a case of that. It blows my mind to treat it as fact when it doesn’t imply or state it. There isn’t enough context given even from a scholarly standpoint to say that. Also this isn’t a clear case for the lord being for rape considering David was heavily punished for this. Also David wasn’t communing with the lord it was Nathan who even told him he would be severely punished for the many acts he committed.

[@streetwisetailoring5338]

Could she have said no without consequences ..considering what happened to her husband for not going home to sleep with her

[@johannageisel5390]

In that time, women were seen as property, so the Jews and later Christians did the same. And we have barely moved beyond that in the last 2000+ years. >:-(

[@justincredible.]

The modern moral comes from secularism, not the bible. The bible is A-moral!

[@justchilling704]

Can you provide any historical evidence and data for this?

[@scambammer6102]

the bible is consistently immoral. The bible is a gross and disgusting piece of garbage. the subject of this video is just one example.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

Dan brings up the issue what other use could there be other than sex. One potential use of woman that is super-sexual is that she can have babies, and those babies could become slaves. If the woman does not make babies in six years she can be released because she did not make babies. If we recall female children are property even after they reach maturity, so the slave owner could just make his daughters unmarryable and they would essentially be slaves for life. The second issue here is mosaic law and obedience. It does not appear people were obeying the mosaic law with any rogorousness until 125 BCE and moreover we don't even kniw what was in the mosiac law before 250 BCE. So alot of this discussion becomes moot. I think Josh is actually wrong about the point of what is moral or unmoral by different chronological standards. A moralist: The sumerians were immoral because they danced naked drunk on the nape of the temple and their kingsgip ceremony involved public displays of lewd behavior. Lets analyze the argument. Does morality have a context in the past. For example, what social value does it have for me declare something that happened in the past immoral. So this has to deal with the foundations of society. 1. Who came up with the first written code of behavior? 2. Who came up with the first encided piety rules? 3. Who created the first administrative trading culture? 4. Who put stele at the center of their cities letting travelers know the local codes? 5. Where do our current law codes come from? 6. Are our law codes evolving? So that we can see by whatever mechanisms the law codes are evolving. It the process of creating geometry, trigonometry, writing, extended trade networks, . . . . people were doing other stuff and over time they found that maybe people should not do some stuff, so they created codes. Do we judge them first for doing something "inappropriate" or for creating codes for restricting inappropriate behavior. So lets consider the prestate: People live in tribes, by whatever process women are taken as mates in small groups and the small groups interest are in what happens to the women. But for generic diversity to be maintained men/women must transfer between tribal groups. This requires some negotiation. Once completed the person transferred can be treated as an entitity in his/her new group. So now lets extend the scale by 1000 fold, people are traveling the distances of several tribal territories, the may live in a trading quarter 1000 miles from their homeland, they may take wives from the locals, they may take women in payment of a debt. Their credo is to their homeland and their trading family. So now we see the need for codes to protect women among people who have much less kinship with them. The problem is that codes do not appear overnight. As was explained once upon a time by the local fire training officer. 'You may notice that what we teach you changes. when this happens its generally as a result of someone doing something unexpected, and we have to change the training accordingly'. And this whole process generally takes a decade or more. So lets deal with the opinion, is the bible sexual morality codes moral? The answer is in the context it was a code which is better than having no code, and there is a context. Second issue, is the bibles code moral by today's standard? Remember that 2500 BCE there was no codex, codices are in a state of evolution, so the point is moot. We have our own legal codes and people should abide by those codes or change them. Before the internet noone gave anythought to the electronic distribution of salacious material done so without appropriate consent. Third issue how should we consider the deuteronomistic law and divinity. The 613 peity rules for people of Israelite descent should be considered in light of the fact that these peity rules are for self-confessed children of Elohim YHWH. That by their law code these rules do not apply to the gohim. For gentiles that elect to respect the Jewish divinity there are 7 peity rules and none involve slavery. Moreover, if you do not respect their divinity then exact 613 peity rules apply to you. The key here is that these rules are peity rules that apply to a people, place and time.

[@truthgiver8286]

The bible has different views on rape and it revolves round the woman belonging to a man If the woman is betrothed or belongs to a man it is a crime If the woman is not betrothed then it is not and the girl may even have to marry her rapist she gets no say. Basically it is not about rape at all the crime is about taking what belongs to another man the woman is incidental.

[@peterwallis4288]

If she's not married it's a crime. Sex outside of marriage.

[@truthgiver8286]

@@peterwallis4288 You should try actually reading the bible. Deuteronomy 22:28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days

[@peterwallis4288]

@@truthgiver8286 yes, I did forget that. But you should try reading the Bible too. Do you dispute that sex outside of marriage is a sin?

[@peterwallis4288]

@@truthgiver8286 with that, it's not saying the man didn't do anything wrong. It's saying that the woman (who he may have made pregnant) is now his responsibility. It's a consequence for his action. He can't just go and have his fun and leave her. I do not agree that's a good situation for the woman. However, in that society, it may have actually been the better option.

[@peterwallis4288]

@@truthgiver8286 oh and I want a straight answer to that. Is sex outside of marriage a sin?

[@jamesmabry5776]

Using my perfect reading comprehension skills I have interpreted that nowhere in the Bible does it endorse or justify rape.

[@scambammer6102]

except the parts they talk about in the video that you didn't watch

[@jamesmabry5776]

@@scambammer6102 I did not watch any of the video because I know for a fact that nowhere in the Bible is there an endorsement or justification for rape.

[@scambammer6102]

@@jamesmabry5776 other than the fact that the Bible DOES NOT PROHIBIT RAPE but it does prohibiting "having other gods before me." Christianity: 2000 years of lame excuses for immorality.

[@GutsStan]

@@scambammer6102Bad arguments and baseless claims.

[@justincredible.]

But they're only reading and teaching the nice parts.... the rest they're willfully ignorant about.

[@jmdsservantofgod8405]

Everything is in the Bible……. No surprises!

[@dragonfox2.058]

the patriarchy is "whatever men want when ever they want it" the bible is the patriarchal manifesto.....doesn't really seem to be working out all that well.

[@reynellfreeman8761]

thats not what the bible is

[@dragonfox2.058]

@@reynellfreeman8761 oh I know you don't think so but it is

[@reynellfreeman8761]

@@dragonfox2.058 it's not that's just myth collage feminist made up to slander the Christian women and because they thought everything in the past was patriarchy

[@justiceearth9702]

I don’t believe any of those laws in the New Testament was given to Moses by the Creator. I believe Moses adopted those laws from earlier Hittite and The code of Hammurabi. There are just way too many similarities between those laws.

[@jmdsservantofgod8405]

Yes! Read the Bible! A Donkey that talks, the Sun standing still for a day, people speaking in other languages instantly, lots of great reading! And the overall theme is the Amazing Grace of God!

[@creekboie3277]

I can tell Jennifer is uncomfortable with this topic.

[@danjohnson8138]

✌️

[@justinporter458]

It,s OK with God ,just make sure you,ve got your 50 silver shekels.

[@jmdsservantofgod8405]

The Bible does not endorse….it tells of history of people and God’s relationship to people along the way to promised salvation! And then it introduces God’s Amazing Grace for people who realize they cannot match the Glory of God! Faith in the perfect Lamb (Jesus) will make you righteous in the eyes of God! And eternal life awaits you with rewards and crowns! Of course you would want to be as good as possible to thank our loving God!

[@scambammer6102]

nope gawd actually orders his "people" to commit rape

[@jmdsservantofgod8405]

@@scambammer6102 you are hardened towards God….. but you have time!

[@scambammer6102]

@@jmdsservantofgod8405 f your gawd in the az

[@daaronwells]

6:55 The Scripture in question states the intent of the law exactly the opposite, though. He cannot divorce her because he must treat her as a wife, NOT as a slave. This argument is overlaying a modern concept of the ability to divorce as freedom onto a milieu in which divorce could very well mean a life of prostitution for the divorced woman. Say what you like about your opinion about the Law, but at least represent it correctly.

[@Miguel09z]

Very well said. This is I always tell people that our biases and dispositions towards things must not and cannot affect how we conclude things or else all kinds of errors and other things surface.

[@Miguel09z]

He unfortunately also misunderstood and or either didn't know what paying a dowry is. Its not a "transaction " as he painted it when he said "...she has the value of...." Its an ancient tradition preceding a couple's union. Its actually something still done today in many countries and is not deemed, not even by the US, as a human rights violation.

[@DeepDrinks]

Didn’t Dr. Josh clarify right at the start that there is a problem within apologetics to soften the narrative with the bibles reasoning but that we were approaching it with todays standards of what we would consider sexual violence? I’m less concerned about the justification and more concerned that the victim never has a choice. Where is her instructions?

[@labaker3477]

Human make their god in their own image. Like today, even with the law, a woman still has to fight for the right to have a share of the wealth. Many men will even hide their true assets. The law itself in the old time didn't make it a thing for the one who bears the children, then raise them to have provisions made for herself. "Be in a marriage or die" is the law of the Bible still in the psyche of the modern world regardless of new laws. More single women than men have to be home for their children. They are also expected to go out there and make a living. There is still no separation between politic and religion.

[@darthvirgin7157]

@@Miguel09z you’re justifying the rape and slavery. simply put.

[@neverhungryagain2187]

Yo

[@danielb9229]

I don't still understand how all this PHD scholars still misinterpret the bible. When that was what you went to school for.

[@imagomonkei]

What's more likely? That some random illiterate on KZbin is right and all the Ph.D.s who've been studying this in university for years are wrong? …or that you've been lied to by your pastor (who maybe doesn't know any better either), and the experts are, you know, experts? 😒

[@DeepDrinks]

Can you please give some examples of where they are misinterpreting the bible. Be very specific and give your sources.

[@GutsStan]

Bc it’s about justifying their agenda not understanding the text as they are meant to be. There’s a reasons Orthadox Christians and even Jews have interpreted the Bible a certain way and always have in many things.

[@Antony-xv1gl]

How do you God doesn't exist?

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

We don’t know if there is a god or not, it’s impossible to know for certain. but it’s definitely not yaweh nor any other man made “god”

[@scambammer6102]

@@bitofwizdomb7266 nah it's easy to prove no gawds exist. they are all made up BS by half-wit humans

[@scambammer6102]

great writing skills there champ

[@Antony-xv1gl]

@@scambammer6102 What's your answer?

[@scambammer6102]

@@Antony-xv1gl my answer is that you should go back to grade school and learn how to write a fg sentence

[@Miguel09z]

I really liked this video and the panel, but the unfortunate issue that comes from certain panels is that no one is around to focus on and correct errors made by anyone. The error that Matt made was related to Deut. 22: 28-29 which says this, 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;29Then 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. The Hebrew word found in this passage has nothing to do with rap3 as we define the word in our time. The Hebrew word is **tāp̄aś** (תָּפַשׂ) H8610. Its meaning is related to engaging in intercourse in this passage, not rap3. Its like someone saying they took home and "scored" with a woman last night. We don't assume the word "took" to be bad unless context eludes to that. However, even if no one knew the Hebrew text, all one would need to do is do some reading and find out that Deut. 22: 25-26 talks about rap3 very clearly. And in reading the two verses, anyone could come to the understanding that verse 28 does **NOT** mean what they think it means. For why would the very same thing be mentioned back to back from verses 25-29? Anyone would question that and that would/should cause them to read and look into further before reaching a conclusion. Deut. 22: 25-26 25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man ****force her,**** and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: The Hebrew word in verse 25 for the word "force" is **ḥāzaq** H2388. Meaning to prevail over, to press, be urgent, to be severe, be grievous... That is the passage about rap3 and we see the consequences from it. The man is put to death and the woman is saved. One need to read the entire chapter 28 of Deuteronomy. So Deut. 22: 28 is about intercourse between the man and woman and thus the man must pay the fee of a dowry. One who has studied and read would also recognize this scenario from Exodus 22: 16-17 which says this and also shows that the scenario had the option where the woman, even though she slept willingly with the man, if the father refused the payment, then she would not become his wife 16And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

[@lancenebeker8055]

Hebrew was a dead language 200 years before jesus.old testament in Hebrew was invented or created around 400 years after jesus.some jews use king james version and jews mostly use thier own version different than kingjames version

[@lancenebeker8055]

Using Arabic form of old testament first books translated not the rest. Jews had spoken language not written

[@Miguel09z]

@@lancenebeker8055 nothing against you when I say this. That still doesn't dissolve the truth of the matter. Verse 25 and 26 clearly speak about the law regarding rap3. So for it to be stated again in verse 28 and also mean rap3 would be very illogical, especially as we don't see this type of writing anywhere in the Deuteronomy where something is repeated back to back.

[@Miguel09z]

@@lancenebeker8055 and what you stated is factual but I'm not talking about that matter, this is about them misunderstanding the passage due to the translation that was based off manuscripts in Hebrew and other. 25 and 26 are about rap3. 28 and 29 are about consensual intercourse. Edit: And I liked second comment fyi

[@lancenebeker8055]

@Miguel09z from what translated version .not arguing for or against main topic.what I mean is so many Hebrew word numbering systems have changed so much in my 50 years of search untrained. Except studied with assistant pastor while he was going thru school and got a masters degree in Hebrew and greek.i am only wondering about concordance theological or open language reference thanks

[@JimmyTuxTv]

Michelle Flaherty is a friend that wants to know if musicians liberty in biblical descriptions applies to her Band Camp moments. 🪈