by pennycandy 51 Replies latest watchtower bible
The parts where the virgin girl who was raped and was required by God's Perfect Law to marry her rapist and remain with him for the rest of her life was one of the most vile, unjust, unloving, degrading requirement I have ever seen in print.
Which account is that Scully?
nic:
Deuteronomy 22:28, 29
In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl's father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.
Another to add to the mix is: Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman. Although he has issues based on his own ex-religion, he demonstrates in plain english how what we read in the bible is not what was originally written. Therefore, not the so called 'word of God'.
steve
I haven't read the other books recommended yet, but I did enjoy Misquoting Jesus as already suggested. I thought the stuff about the early denominations of Christianity was really interesting and how scribes deliberately altered the texts to reflect their own theologies and to disprove the beliefs of other factions! Apparently the changes from one ancient manuscript to the next aren't nearly so insignificant as the WT and others would have us believe.
For example, there was at least one faction that believed Jesus was just a prophet who was later adopted by God as his son. In other words, no Trinity, no Michael the Archangel sent to Earth--they believed that Jesus never existed in any form before the man, Jesus, was born. They beleived that when Jesus was baptized that God literally adopted him, declaring him to be his "unique son" rather than his "only begotten son." When Jesus died, he was resurrected as a spirit/king and taken into heaven. It's almost as if Jesus was an anointed in JW doctrine. No mention is made of the "Jesus was Michael the Archangel" doctrine in the book.
You might also check out these web sites:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
At the Skeptic's Annotated Bible site, there are links to relavent articles on other sites that explain some of the sidenotes more clearly. Here is one that I find really interesting to get you started. Check out the links on the page for papers explaining was "firmament" (or "expanse" in the NWT) really meant:
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/topics/firmament.html
IsaacJ
I have read most of the books mentioned but I think one the best is "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke It is about was the original Jesus a Pagan God.
There now way to escape it he was. And this book proves it without prejudice. All Christian should read thisbook and then try to prove it worng, because they can't too much proof. Eye opening book buy and read.
If I were you, I'd check out The Real Face of Atheism by Ravi Zacharias and also his book called Can Man Live Without God?
skully,
excuse me for saying this but that verse in Duet. 22:28,29 the word "rape" is not what you think it is. During that time, if a young man had sex with a virgin not betrothed to him, it would be considered "rape". Not because he forcefully had sex with her, but because he did not have the right to have sex with her. The warning here was for men to not have relations with any young girl thinking it is o.k. since she is not betrothed to another man. Just because she is "single" does not mean she is readily available for any man to use. The men would be held accountable and thus had to pay a fine for taking the young girls chastity or marry her. This rule was in affect for the protection of women.
Lilly
that verse in Duet. 22:28,29 the word "rape" is not what you think it is. During that time, if a young man had sex with a virgin not betrothed to him, it would be considered "rape". Not because he forcefully had sex with her, but because he did not have the right to have sex with her. The warning here was for men to not have relations with any young girl thinking it is o.k. since she is not betrothed to another man. Just because she is "single" does not mean she is readily available for any man to use. The men would be held accountable and thus had to pay a fine for taking the young girls chastity. This rule was in affect for the protection of women.
And yet earlier in the passge, in Deuteronomy 22:22 - 27, the penalty for consensual sexual relations between unmarried individuals was execution. Verses 25-27 describe the scenario where an engaged virgin was "grabbed" (or "seized" as vs 28 puts it) by a man who proceeded to "lay down with her", and she screamed, he would be put to death by himself, because she did not do anything wrong.
The fact of the matter is that the man did not have the right to have sex with the girl, so it is rape. We agree on that. So does she have to marry her rapist? Yes. Does she even have a choice in the matter? No, she doesn't, because all she is to anyone in that time period is a piece of property, to be traded for 50 pieces of silver. Does her family even care if she doesn't want to be married to this guy? Apparently not. "God's Law" comes first. Family honour comes first. Gag me!!
During that time, too, it was considered perfectly acceptable to promise girls in marriage and give them in marriage as soon as they started having menstruation. It became a liability for a family head to have an unmarried fertile daughter gadding about, so they married them off to much older men (who could afford to pay the bride price to the father) as soon as possible. It prevented shame from coming to families in the event that an unmarried daughter became pregnant. Again, "God's Law" comes first. Family honour comes first. Nobody gives a crap about the GIRL who is being sold like livestock to the highest bidder.
skully,
I disagree. You are interpreting the scriptures according to our modern day views. The fact of the matter is arranged marriages was the normal thing back then and there were no provisions for divorce. The couple put to death were both adulterers. They knew the penalty for thier sin. In ancient times, the laws were much stricter than now. And that included all the lands, not only Israel. The young girl "raped" was not forced to have sex with the man. It was called rape because she was not betrothed to him. The whole point of the girl being in the city and not screaming is that she cannot later on say, the man forced her to have sex against her will. She has to take action to stop him. But notice that was only if she was in a crowded place, not if she was in an isolated place. I would like to point out too that this verse is not actually saying this scenario took place. The law was strict to be a deterant to the wrong behavior. As far as young girls being married very young, that was also the norm back then. And chasity of virgins was much more valuable, then it is in our modern day culture. Lilly
