This is a perfect example of how you MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST, take the bible's commands and such in perspective to the time frame it was written. This is where fundy's always get my ire up.... they pick and choose which of the OT laws that we should follow today. Given the time frame of some of those laws, they made sense...especially for cleaness back before we had sanitation sewers, anit - biotics, etc. The blood issue is a perfect example of this. It should have no bearing on us today for transfusion issues.
NOT ALLOWED TO RAPE....BUT
by tijkmo 36 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
peacefulpete
Just a quick rsponse...the blood prohibition had nothing to do with health. It, like other dietary regulations, were entirely ritual and cultic in nature. The persians and others also regarded the red liquid in the veins as the life of the animal/person. From antiquity blood was used as sacrificially sacred for appeasing the gods. Food prohibitions had cultic significance as well. Pork for exmple was forbidden the worshippers of Adonis (Adonai) because he was killed by a boar. The Jews adopted these cultic rules from the surrounding tribes and cultures. That is why these prohibitions carried heavy punishments. It would have been quite stupid to kill someone for simply eating unhealthy.
-
EvilForce
Peaceful Pete, thank you for the additional insight....
But you were not to eat shellfish and / or wear a cloth made of two threads. The OT law develed into LOTS of things and made punishment of "stoning" the activity of the day. So the OT did talk about what you should and should not eat. -
trevor
Peaceful Pete - yours is a very well informed post.
It is true that most religions assemble their beliefs from other religions that already exist. Most of the symbols of Christianity are taken from religions and mythology that predates Christianity.
Christians would be shocked to realise how little their religion has to do with Christ and how much it has to do with the power of Rome.
-
IT Support
Just a thought, but might the verses have a slightly different meaning?
When verse 14 says:
And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her.
I'm not saying this is so, but might this verse be referring to the end of the month's 'period of mourning,' before the Israelite 'had relations with her'?
-
tijkmo
it man you could be right....but its still a bit late considering her parents family tribe fellow citizens nation and husband if she was married are all destroyed..who she gonna go back to
and she had to agree...so if she had no-one she would have to stay somewhere that she knew she was not wanted
-
IT Support
Good point.
On the other hand, it still might not be rape...
-
Euphemism
Frankly, IT Support, that strikes me as unlikely. 'To humiliate a woman' is a common locution for unlawful sex in the OT. See e.g.
Deu 22:23,24 "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst.
Deu 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.
Cf also 2 Samuel 13:22,32; Ezekiel 22:10,11.
-
tijkmo
no i wasnt saying it was rape..(although now i think about it its still forced sex..what real alternative did she have)....i just think its a bit rich making a big deal about not being like pagan nations who did rape.....and then offering this as an alternative
-
IT Support
Euphemism,
While what you say is a not unreasonable interpretation of the words, my only point is that it's not an essential one.
The verses you quoted are significant in that they reference one 'euphemistic' use of the word. However, there are dozens of verses which use the plain meaning of the word, e.g.:
Gen 16:6: Then Sarai began to humiliate [Hagar] so that she ran away from her.
Num 12:14: Then Jehovah said to Moses: "Were her father to spit directly in [Miriam's] face, would she not be humiliated seven days?
Ruth 1:21: Why should YOU call me Naomi, when it is Jehovah that has humiliated me and the Almighty that has caused me calamity?"Going back to Deuteronomy, it seems that the humiliation referred to was possibly that of the captive woman's subsequent rejection by her captor, in that he had "found no delight in her."
And if she was sent away, it had to be in a manner " agreeably to her own soul." (A ccording to the NWT footnote: "Or "agreeably to (for) herself; where she wishes." LXXVg, "free."") In other words, not as a slave.
While I have no interest in trying to defend, or support, the inspiration of the Bible, I equally feel we shouldn't make it out to be worse than it already is!