Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Just wanted to note that though he (MandM) didn't mention this in his article, the phrase 'and they be found' suggests she didn't resist and consented by not crying out. I say this because of the context, it doesn't say 'and he be found' to have done this act, but 'and they be found.'

    Deut.22:28-29, "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) on her, and lie with her, and they be found;---."

    8610. taphas
    Strong says: A primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. Seize; chiefly to capture, wield, to lay hold of.

    Note that the bride-price called the 'mohar' is said to be for the protection of the woman, it was not for the father to keep as if the man was buying 'property' that belonged to the father.

    Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the mohar or 'bride-price' to the bride’s father. A mohar was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children.

    I now leave it to the readers

    Twospirits
    The mohar does not apply in the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin, because if you will notice the man who raped her is not allowed to divorce her, therefore the father would keep the money.

    Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) 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 (anah), he may not put her away all his days.

    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Les View Post
    I have the book and it is a read that can shake one to the core, when looking at what goes on in Total War to destroy a people in more ways than one, of the mind and body, of everything. It shows the lowest elements of evil and carnal men of what they would do for their emperor/god.... sick sick sick is putting it mildly. Many times I wish that I had never read it, it has been years but I still can not get the discussed feelings of what happened there and knowing that it has happened many times over and over in history.
    That is why it is so sickening to read the horrific accounts recorded in the Bible that are attributed to the commands of Yahweh. What it has proved to me is that the Bible could not have possibly been inspired by the creator of the universe.

    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    The mohar does not apply in the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin, because if you will notice the man who raped her is not allowed to divorce her, therefore the father would keep the money.

    Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) 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 (anah), he may not put her away all his days.

    Rose
    You are still resisting the obvious Rose. The man in this case cannot divorce the woman,which means a bill of divorcement can never be written. This is obviously different when a man can divorce a woman for "finding no pleasure in her" as you have been arguing elsewhere, so we do not have to make a similar comparison for making your argument against Moses and God as you have been doing elsewhere.

    In neither of these two different exmaples does it not mean the wife cannot leave her husband. An earlier an exampnle in the Bible was quoted by CWH (Judges 19:2) of where a wife leaves her husband to go back to her parents.

    This means that the woman could have left the man in which case, she would definitely require the dowry. If she did not need the dowry, all well and good, the money would have been passed on as inheritance money when the father died. The father in any event is not keeping it for himself and he cannot spend it as he cannot be certain his daughter would not leave her husband. Only the death of the father relieved him of his obligation to keep the money for safe-keeping; not to spend as he wished. Perhaps someone else will confirm the law of inheritance and what happen to this money at the time of the father's death and whether the money was passed down to the family or was passed to the daugther

    Rose, you conclusion that the money was the father's to keep for himself is wrong.

    All the best.

    David

  4. #14
    David M wrote,

    This means that the woman could have left the man in which case, she would definitely require the dowry. If she did not need the dowry, all well and good, the money would have been passed on as inheritance money when the father died. The father in any event is not keeping it for himself and he cannot spend it as he cannot be certain his daughter would not leave her husband. Only the death of the father relieved him of his obligation to keep the money for safe-keeping; not to spend as he wished. Perhaps someone else will confirm the law of inheritance and what happen to this money at the time of the father's death and whether the money was passed down to the family or was passed to the daugther
    Besides divorce the man could abandon her thus the reason for the mohar. It was a security to protect the woman and the children if there were any. Thanks David, you said it much better than I could.

    Twospirits
    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    You are still resisting the obvious Rose. The man in this case cannot divorce the woman,which means a bill of divorcement can never be written. This is obviously different when a man can divorce a woman for "finding no pleasure in her" as you have been arguing elsewhere, so we do not have to make a similar comparison for making your argument against Moses and God as you have been doing elsewhere.

    In neither of these two different exmaples does it not mean the wife cannot leave her husband. An earlier an exampnle in the Bible was quoted by CWH (Judges 19:2) of where a wife leaves her husband to go back to her parents.

    This means that the woman could have left the man in which case, she would definitely require the dowry. If she did not need the dowry, all well and good, the money would have been passed on as inheritance money when the father died. The father in any event is not keeping it for himself and he cannot spend it as he cannot be certain his daughter would not leave her husband. Only the death of the father relieved him of his obligation to keep the money for safe-keeping; not to spend as he wished. Perhaps someone else will confirm the law of inheritance and what happen to this money at the time of the father's death and whether the money was passed down to the family or was passed to the daugther

    Rose, you conclusion that the money was the father's to keep for himself is wrong.

    All the best.

    David
    It's a biblical fact David which you are not willing to admit...women cannot divorce a man! Whether or not the woman runs away does not mean she is divorced from him, unless he divorces her which he is forbidden to do in this case, so her only escape is to kill herself!

    The case you quoted from Judges 19:2 is only speaking of the woman going to her fathers house for four months, the husband then goes and gets his concubine and brings her back. You need to read your Bible before you start quoting it at me.

    My conclusion is no more wrong than yours, because we are speaking about something that the Bible doesn't define, so you are speculating the same as me.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Besides divorce the man could abandon her thus the reason for the mohar. It was a security to protect the woman and the children if there were any. Thanks David, you said it much better than I could.

    Twospirits
    According to this Jewish article, the mohar was originally a "bride price" in the Bible, but that it evolved over time in Jewish culture to become a "divorce penalty" -
    The mohar was originally the purchase price of the bride, and it is therefore understandable why it was paid by the father of the groom to the father of the bride. In ancient days, marriage was not an agreement between two individuals, but between two families.

    The mohar institution was entirely transformed during late-biblical and post-biblical times. From a bridal price it finally became a lien to be paid by the husband in case of divorce, or by his heirs in case of his death.
    This is a good example of how the Jews "civilized" a Biblical barbarism. We must remember that Jewish tradition is often contrary to what the Bible teaches. For example, the Jews trace their lineage through the mother, whereas the Bible traces it through the father. And for Christians, it is foolish in the extreme to appeal to Jewish customs to "correct" the Bible in light of this warning from Christ:

    Mark 7:6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." 9 ¶ He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 "For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 11 "But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban" -- ' (that is, a gift to God), 12 "then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."
    The article also says that the "Bible does not specify what was to be done with the mohar in case the marriage agreement was broken by either of the two parties." So all the speculations about that are pointless.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    You are still resisting the obvious Rose. The man in this case cannot divorce the woman,which means a bill of divorcement can never be written. This is obviously different when a man can divorce a woman for "finding no pleasure in her" as you have been arguing elsewhere, so we do not have to make a similar comparison for making your argument against Moses and God as you have been doing elsewhere.

    In neither of these two different exmaples does it not mean the wife cannot leave her husband. An earlier an exampnle in the Bible was quoted by CWH (Judges 19:2) of where a wife leaves her husband to go back to her parents.

    This means that the woman could have left the man in which case, she would definitely require the dowry. If she did not need the dowry, all well and good, the money would have been passed on as inheritance money when the father died. The father in any event is not keeping it for himself and he cannot spend it as he cannot be certain his daughter would not leave her husband. Only the death of the father relieved him of his obligation to keep the money for safe-keeping; not to spend as he wished. Perhaps someone else will confirm the law of inheritance and what happen to this money at the time of the father's death and whether the money was passed down to the family or was passed to the daugther

    Rose, you conclusion that the money was the father's to keep for himself is wrong.

    All the best.

    David
    Good morning David,

    Your assertion that the woman could have left her husband is not biblical. The Bible states that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth" (Rom 7:2). Paul here is speaking of the Torah. As an aside, it is fascinating that no such law is written in the Torah, which means that Paul was drawing from some other source, probably the Jewish tradition which Christ so vehemently rejected.

    Your assertion that Rose is wrong has no foundation in the Bible. It was later Jewish tradition that transformed the mohar from being a "bride price" belonging to the father into a "divorce penalty." God himself wrote a bad law that had to be "civilized" by Jewish tradition.

    But all this totally misses the point anyway. The point is this: The Torah commands that the victim must marry her rapist and that he could never divorce her. Any fair judgment must agree that this is a barbaric law.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    It's a biblical fact David which you are not willing to admit...women cannot divorce a man! Whether or not the woman runs away does not mean she is divorced from him, unless he divorces her which he is forbidden to do in this case, so her only escape is to kill herself!
    You draw this conclusion; I do not.

    Hello Rose
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    The case you quoted from Judges 19:2 is only speaking of the woman going to her fathers house for four months, the husband then goes and gets his concubine and brings her back. You need to read your Bible before you start quoting it at me.
    I have read the Bible and the passage in question and that is why I am quoting it ( as it was quoted by someone else). I expect you to do the same. The man took his wife back and the matter was resolved, but what if the husband had not gone after her, would his wife have returned? We are unable to answer that question with any certainty. Had the husband not taken the initiative, we might conclude the wife would not have returned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    My conclusion is no more wrong than yours, because we are speaking about something that the Bible doesn't define, so you are speculating the same as me.
    That is partly true, but you are kicking against what to many is obvious. Apart from Richard, I do not see anyone else agreeing with you. I know we both want more contributors (whatever their views). If the Bible does not define something, why be so adamant you are correct?

    All the best

    David

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Good morning David,
    Your assertion that the woman could have left her husband is not biblical. The Bible states that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth" (Rom 7:2). Paul here is speaking of the Torah. As an aside, it is fascinating that no such law is written in the Torah, which means that Paul was drawing from some other source, probably the Jewish tradition which Christ so vehemently rejected.
    I have not said the wife did not remain married to the husband, I and others have argued that this is what was set out at the beginning and Jesus confirmed, A wife leaving a husband is not free to marry again, so long as her husband is alive. This does not stop the wife leaving the husband, for which I and others have given an example.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Your assertion that Rose is wrong has no foundation in the Bible. It was later Jewish tradition that transformed the mohar from being a "bride price" belonging to the father into a "divorce penalty." God himself wrote a bad law that had to be "civilized" by Jewish tradition..
    Traditions of men do tend to muddle things, but I do not see what is the bad law you are referring to.


    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    But all this totally misses the point anyway. The point is this: The Torah commands that the victim must marry her rapist and that he could never divorce her. Any fair judgment must agree that this is a barbaric law.
    It has been argued by others that the event we are considering here is not rape. You continue to say it is despite Twospirits giving you a much better understanding of the words that you use to argue your case that rape is the correct term. You are sticking to your guns no matter what, and do not even contemplate that you might be wrong. I think we have passed the point in this thread for you to continue to make this assertion.

    All the best,

    David

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose

    You draw this conclusion; I do not.

    Hello Rose

    I have read the Bible and the passage in question and that is why I am quoting it ( as it was quoted by someone else). I expect you to do the same. The man took his wife back and the matter was resolved, but what if the husband had not gone after her, would his wife have returned? We are unable to answer that question with any certainty. Had the husband not taken the initiative, we might conclude the wife would not have returned.
    Hi David,

    All we can speak of is what the Bible says, otherwise there are far too many conclusions one could come to. If the Bible doesn't address the issue of the man not going after his wife then a believer must conclude that Yahweh didn't deem it important enough to include that scenario. After all, isn't the Bible suppose to contain all a believer needs to know about God's ways?



    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    That is partly true, but you are kicking against what to many is obvious. Apart from Richard, I do not see anyone else agreeing with you. I know we both want more contributors (whatever their views). If the Bible does not define something, why be so adamant you are correct?

    All the best

    David
    Just because others (Christians) do not agree with me or Richard does not make our conclusions wrong. People who are stuck in religious boxes have a hard time seeing any other perspective, and they can never accuse their God of being immoral or biased!

    Thanks for chatting,

    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •