Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Punishment for rape: 50 shekels of silver to girl's father +

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 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 the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


Ok. Put yourself in this girls shoes. She's raped. Now her father gets 50 shekels of silver and she has to marry her rapist. Does this sound like a good deal for this victim?


chris said...

yea it's a good deal. think about it, when the guy is asleep, she can go right ahead and kill the guy. or do it when he's awake by poisoning his food.

and 50 silver shekels is a lot of money. i bet if he couldn't pay he would have to be the fathers slave for quite some time until he paid it off.

plus, if the dude is stupid enough to stick around after raping someone, he deserves to be married to a dumb bitch that didn't call for help.

it's posts like yours, and sites like the 'skeptics bible'(where i got this link from) that make the bible that much more cooler. did you know you're doing believers a favor?

jesus wasn't as pussy as mainstream christians make him out to be. there's a new generation of disciples being formed, and we will bring this earth the antichrist it deserves.

for further discussion, email me at chris.kleine@gmail.com, as i probably won't be checking up on your blog.

jason said...

lol What the hell is that all about??? :)

tiny tim said...

Exd 22:16-17 "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

chris said...

seeing as how christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, try to focus your discourse to passages in the New Testament. Matthew 10:34 is as good a place to starts as any...

the reason Jesus was crucified is because the pharisees were offended that Jesus preached his own message that went against what they were preaching, what we consider the Old Testament.

and if you really want to bash on Jesus, do some reach into theories concerning why there's a 20 year gap in chronicling the life of Jesus. try to make a connection between Jesus & Mother Mary and Horus & Isis. go on, open a simple pandora box. what've you got to lose, besides all your preconceived notions, of course... ;)

it's very easy to criticize something. the real challenge comes in finding the good within the bad.

example: lucifer/satan. the enemy of God and all His followers. without whom no religion/belief would be possible. so, in effect, how bad of a guy is satan, really?

tiny tim: since sex is considered a sacred blood covenant between 2 people, and a guy and a girl choose to treat it as some game, then their marriage will be treated as such. and, who does the dowry get paid to again? and what is a dowry exactly?


in the words of elvis: "what's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?"

tiny tim said...

Bash on Jesus? Huh? Who's bashing on Jesus?

Secondly, all I did was quote a relevant verse in light of the original post, not yours, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Lucifer. lol And who exactly is Lucifer?

dj said...

hey tiny tim you retard, lucifer is another name for satan. and woul someone please explain to me why it is the church needs to accept millions of dollars a year? to mkae and purchase expensive chairs and crosses for the pope i suppose? does the bible not say to give to the poor? it seems to me money thats given to these churches, which are unnecassary to be forgiven in the first place, could spend their money more wisely

Anonymous said...

Jesus was angry that the Pharisees were NOT following the word of God. (Mark 7:9.) Jesus said you must follow the the law. (Matt 5:17). He came to FULFILL the law, NOT to abolish it.

Therefore, if you are a Christian, you must follow ALL the laws in the Bible, including the Old Testament laws about slavery and rape AND divorce.

This "Chris" guy (or girl) is very naive and obviously brainwashed like most people. It's hilarious how he/she tries to defend this scripture. And 50 shekels of silver is NOT a lot of money. It's about 400 bucks compared to today. I think it's a "good deal" for the rapist.

And she can't kill him in his sleep, she'd be STONED to death. If God's intention was to have her marry the guy so she could kill him in his sleep then God would have just said "If you rape anyone, you get stoned to death!" Done deal...but the Bible doesn't say that. Does this sound like the teachings of a supreme being to you?

To quote Chris: "it's very easy to criticize something. the real challenge comes in finding the good within the bad." So you are saying the bible includes some BAD? Then it can't possibly be the Infallible Word of God can it?

AND TO THE CREATOR OF THE SITE: You should include more quotes from Jesus showing how he WAS NOT completely about love and changing things and getting rid of the Old Covenant. It seems that people seem to give the Old Testament a free pass because the incorrectly think Jesus abolished it.

Truth Seeker said...

Anonymous #1, when you said, "Therefore, if you are a Christian, you must follow ALL the laws in the Bible, including the Old Testament laws about slavery and rape AND divorce," that is not necessarily accurate. Once Jesus (the last sacrifice) died and was raised again, the Mosaic Laws were no longer in effect. The laws that we still must adhear to are the Ten Commandments. The New Testament speaks of this several times. Other than that, what you have made clear is pretty accurate.

David said...

Truth seeker:
First allow me to quote your book.
Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Now I know that you'll say his sacrifice to himself was the end, but it says quite clearly "...until heaven and earth disappear...", and, well... we're still here. So this seems quite clear to me.

But then you go & shoot yourself in the foot and say that we only need to uphold the 10 commandments. The reference to these commandments in stone was from Exodus 20:1-17. It was Moses who talked to a burning bush and got these, not Jesus.

But assuming your logic was correct, this would mean that homosexuality is ok (not mentioned by Jesus or the 10 commandments). Rape is ok (it never mentions daughters, unless you think of your neighbors' daughters as his property). Adultery is ok as long as it is not another man's wife (specifically mentions wife). Eating an animal "found dead upon itself" is ok. In fact, any of the animals we should find 'detestable' are ok (split hoofs, anything from the oceans without scales, etc).

I know… I know.. I’m reading too literally, right? So if this is anyone’s response, please tell me the criteria for when to interpret something to the letter. How do you pick and choose what you do NOT read to the letter?

FollowerOfTheWay.com said...

This is a WRONG interpretation of that scripture.

This man that the woman sleeps with is not a stranger. Deuteronomy 22 is the Same law as this one in Exodus...

[16] And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
[17] If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

MEN WERE REQUIRED TO ASK THE FATHER TO GIVE HER DAUGHTER TO WIFE. THE FATHER LOOKED AFTER THE DAUGHTER & WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HER. If a man entices (seduce) a woman that is a virgin in order to force the father's hand in marriage. The father could refuse, & the man would still have to pay the dowry of virgins.

This discourage men from doing this type of offense. The man would be out 50 Shekels of Silver with no wife.

Deut. 22 is not rape but poor translation.

Anonymous said...

After reading it again, it doesn't look like rape is a good translation. It doesn't say force, Deuteronomy 22:25 says what should happen to a man that forces himself on a woman, stoning.

David said...

Actually, verse 28-29 are just a continuation of the discussion. If you pay attention. Starting with

22:23-24: what to do if a man rapes a virgin (who is betrothed) while in the city (it doesn't say rape, but why else would she be punished for not crying out?).

22:25-27: what to if the man rapes a virgin (who is betrothed) in the country (she gets off this time, because she probably cried out and no one heard her).

22:28-29: what to do if a man rapes a virgin who is not betrothed. Even in King James' English, it's plain as English. The line doesn't have to say "forced" because it's implied in the context (or you can infer it from the context if that's better grammar).

And Christians are always giving me shit for reading out of context.

Anonymous said...

The idea is that other men won't want to marry her because she's been "defiled." If her rapist doesn't marry her, no one will, and she will have no one to take care of her. Put it in the context of the time, and it makes sense.

TrueN2Dpoint said...

Tuesday April 26, 2011


I could not have seen it coming? All of the details, everything pointed to the work of an Insider. Someone who knew every facet, every nuance of the human experience. An individual with enough power to plan and orchestrate an entire Species. An Intelligent force that would bring into existence the manifested kingdom of the universal and timeless controller we now know and call the FATHER!

His Plan was without error and took into account every variation that would end in chaos and reworked itself to bring about the fulfillment and mandatory results that was desired from the beginning. Simply put, you either became assimilated by your own free will or you became used to bring others to the place where they are faced with the ultimate choice of freely and by faith choosing to be assimilated.

Here is The PLAN of The Father.

Plan Objective:

1. To have Children who are worthy of being called Sons and Daughters of the Most High GOD.
2. They must find their way to me through acknowledging my supremacy and by passing a series of tests, that will be administered in a precise manner to bring about the desired and acceptable results, according to my Standard.
3. They must be willing to give up everything they perceive to be right and good and come into agreement with me, that I know what is best for them.
4. They must seek me as if they were looking for something of great value, like hidden treasure.
5. They must thirst for me, so I may quench their thirst with my living water.

Anonymous said...

Alcoholics Anonymous has all the answers!!!!

Anonymous said...

The obligation was on the man, not the woman. And the father had right of refusal, too. The culprit could not divorce her but she could certainly leave him.

The whole point of this law, is that if a man took a woman's virginity, she had a claim on his support for life. Since the theft of her virginity, made her chance of getting married to anyone else, NEAR ZERO, and since in a preindustrial culture a woman couldn't make it without a man, forcing him to support her is fair. Harsh as it sounds, it was actually humane in its original cultural context. In modern terms, it would be as if we made the penalty for rape, lifetime alimony.

Also, Israelites were forbidden to marry into other tribes. So if Susie Sorority got date-raped by Biff FratRat at the party, yes, Biff is on the hook to take care of her forever. But if someone of another tribe (an illegal alien gangster, for instance) raped her, well, that would have been handled as a military matter.

Anonymous said...

Nick Lowe wrote that song

Anonymous said...

What translation of the Bible are you using? I'm guessing NLT..? (I could be wrong.) but I suggest the ESV, it's the most correctly translated. And that verse isn't speaking of rape, but of mutual consent. Just two or three verses before the one mentioned it speaks of the punishment for rape, and that's death.

John Mayer said...

46 The more Christians try to defend the perverse insanity of the Bible, especially the old testament, the more insane they seem, tying themselves in logical knots trying to justify the unforgiveable commands of a savage god. For those that say we shouldn’t point out the cruelties demanded of men in the old testament because that doesn’t count any more, then WHY IS IT STILL PART of your BIBLE? If you agree to repudiate the old testament I, for one, will have more respect for your Christian beliefs.

Anonymous said...

I had to comment on this ignorant misquotation of the Bible. The statement is incorrect because the example quoted and the version of the Bible used does not state the matter as the Bible really states it. Its not rape that is being allowed in the Bible for 50 shekels. The rapist is to be put to death in such a case and the girl is to be let go. The example spoken about is actually of a man not forcing a young virgin but a young man that finds a woman that is attractive and they have consentual sex. Otherwise the woman would have yelled for help. Because sexual relationship before marriage is not allowed, the guy has to marry her. He has to marry her in order to prevent a bunch of people having fornication everywhere and with anyone. He has to honor the marriage relationship. Not pay 50 shekels because he rape a virgin.

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But 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: But 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: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 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 22:22-29)

Anonymous said...

Wow talk about ignorant; you claim that the statement is incorrect because the example quoted is not about rape, but the example quoted literally calls it rape! Furthermore you say that the man is put to death but nothing happens to the girl but that is only if she cries out. If she is raped in the city and does not cry out then she also is to be stoned to death. But what if she is mute, what if he holds his hand over her mouth, what if she is too scared because he threatens to kill her if she cries out? And these are just reasonable objections to make based upon bronze age morality - by today's standards these rules and behavior's are even more heinous.

Loving Christian said...

Anyone have any unmarried daughters I can rape? I will pay the 50 shekels up front. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I just see so clearly that some people shouldn't try to explain things they don't understand themselves.

It means that if two people want to pretend like they are married before they are married (having sex with no responsibility) the punishment is.... marriage.

I think the modern misunderstanding of these verses comes when people think the word translated "rape" means sex against her will, not merely an offense against her honor. I think "and they are discovered" points to the fact that in this situation, the woman is complicit.

There are other verses that discuss rape against the woman's will - where she tries to call for help. In those cases the punishment is death for the rapist and no punishment for the woman.

Of course then the case would come up - did she really cry for help, or is she just framing him so she doesn't have to take the blame? That is why the distinction about in the city vs. in the country comes up later. The Law is trying to be fair to all parties, knowing that rape does occur, and also knowing that consensual sex outside of marriage does occur... and sometimes people lie about what exactly happened after the fact.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 seemingly commands the death penalty for a man who “rapes” a woman who is betrothed.

It is important to understand that the Hebrew words used in Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28 do not necessarily indicate rape. In verse 25, the Hebrew word chazaq is used, and it essentially means “seize,” or “take hold of.” In verse 28, a different Hebrew word taphas is used, and while it has a very similar meaning to chazaq, it is not the same word. In both verses 25 and 28, the Hebrew word shakab is used, and while it literally means “lie down,” it is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse. So, both verses 25 and 28 describe a man seizing and having sex with a woman. While this is a possible description of rape, it does not explicitly refer to rape. Also, the differences in the Hebrew words between Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28, could be interpreted as verse 25 referring to rape, with verse 28 referring to consensual sex.

Please attempt to study (Which means at least attempt to go back to the original intent outside of personal interpretations which are phrase by phrase translations.
Use a word for word like the NASB.
Also try to understand how people lived back then.

Duet 22:28 IS NOT talking about a woman who was forcibly raped.

Funny how this guy came up with the same thing I did after searching the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES...


Anonymous said...

I think the author of this post didn't understand the full context of the command. The rapist is the one who had to pay and even marry and care for his victim. The girl who was raped, however, had the full choice of whether or not she wanted to marry him. If she didn't want him, she could just say no. If she did want him, he was obliged to take her as his wife.

Aaron said...

I know the Bible says to not answer a fool according to his folly lest you be like him, but also it says to answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes. So in this case I chose to answer the fool:) First of all, I don't believe this is a reference to rape but rather consensual sex, but that is another issue.
The proper way to look at this is in relation to Jesus' words when asked about divorce and remarriage. He said "from the beginning it was not so" but because of the hardness of their hearts God permitted divorce in certain instances. But God's ideal plan then and now remains one man and one woman in a loving relationship for life (Matthew 19:4-8). God's O.T. laws served several purposes, but one was to bring a degree of order and civility to a pagan and wicked nation so that in future generations He could bring His perfect answer in Jesus Christ through that nation. If you travel in pagan and primitive cultures- like where I live in Tanzania- you would find this to be a rather strict punishment. It doesn't mean that this was God's ideal, but that He is bringing morality one step at a time to a people who are pagan and wicked. God's ideal still remains one man and one woman in a loving relationship of marriage for life, but because of the hardness of their heart He institutes these rules.

Anonymous said...

You realize that to read the Bible literally, you would have to read it in Hebrew and understand the culture. So this whole blog is a huge stupid joke.

Anonymous said...

Full choice? I read that it's her father's choice. Which brings up the issue, where is the woman's place, by "God's Word"?

Unknown said...

Before using scripture in a debate, one should fully understand what the writer and/or messenger was trying to convey. You are wrong in your interpretation of this passage. Search "meaning of Matthew 5:17".

Bill Amato said...

Use a search engine an type in "meaning of ......".
Ex. Meaning of Matthew 5:17

Yosef said...

Deuteronomy 22:28 does not say rape it is seduced, she is of age, she can say yes or no. Deuteronomy 22:25, refers to rape, he is to be put to death.

Unknown said...

This verse is mistranslated. It should read "seduced" she gave her consent. Notice; if they are found together. .. they got caught having fun! If she was being raped it would not have been worded that way. The old testament teaches that rape is punishable by death.

Anonymous said...

You have it backwards. The Pharisees are the ones that taught their own human tradition at the expense of God's word.

"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mark 7:9 KJVA

Jesus taught the Old Testament.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
Matthew 22:29 KJVA

"and that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:15 KJV

"(which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures,)
Romans 1:2 KJVA

The holy scriptures and the Old Testament are what Jesus taught. That's the word of God.

"...the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
John 14:10 KJVA

Anonymous said...

The only laws no longer in effect are the sacrificial laws

ZoneFighter1 said...

Thats a mistranslation its not talking about rape its talking about seduction. The woman is willing. When actually taking about a man forcing himself on a woman it calls for executing the man.