Posted on 05/04/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Legendary conservative columnist George Will says he is an atheist. […]
“I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist,” Will explained. “I deeply respect religions and religious people. The great religions reflect something constant and noble in the human character, defensible and admirable yearnings.”
“I am just not persuaded. That’s all,” he added. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
You’re getting words mixed up again. “Taphas” is the means by which the fellow induced the girl to “shakab” (which means to “lay”, and by figurative meaning, have sex) with him. And again, that’s but one sense of the English word “capture”, not all senses (which renders English a more corrupt language than Hebrew).
I don’t think I need to say twice what I already said. It isn’t too long ago that “shakab” as a result of “taphas” (no violence) resulted in a marriage in the USA, remember—but never in the case of “khazaq”-induced “shakab”, which is violent rape.
So I’ll ask again ... in which verse does it specifically say that the violent rape of a NON-BETROTHED woman ends in the perpetrator’s death? You know, something that differentiates not between whether she’s betrothed or not, but whether it was by force or not. (Although it’s clear that Taphas does include rape, and how you can deny it when it is YOU who gave me that link, I do not know.)
Being serfdom to you is your problem.
It is eternal life in his presence to me, thus there is no serfdom.
To bad about your poor choices.
Why is it “indifference for sure”? Especially when the God we are speaking of here declares himself “not a respecter of persons” (from Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11)? Indifference implies no beneficial action whatsoever towards those shown this alleged indifference.
And by the way, there is nothing in the link you gave that indicates that Taphas is non-violent. It says SEIZE, CAPTURE, HOLD, ARREST, TAKE. It can include MANIPULATE but it clearly also says SEIZE, CAPTURE, HOLD, ARREST, and TAKE.
The case is not indicated. Nor did anyone claim it was. One can infer that “shakab” by “khazaq” (violent rape) carries the death penalty for the male alone even if perpetrated on an unbetrothed virgin, or even a married woman (another case not specified in Deuteronomy chapter 22).
It’s not at all clear that “taphas includes rape” of the kind indicated by “khazaq”, but it indicates statutory rape by definition of US law, certainly. It is clear that “khazaq” indicates violent rape.
Don't you value self-determination? Your worldview is inherently authoritarian, much more so than anything our worldly dictators could dream up.
Except maybe the Scientologists. I think they have to sign billion year contracts...
You’re defining in reverse again. “Capture” is a word with varied meanings, while “taphas” and “khazaq” are more specific in their meanings.
I think it's crazy to think that the universe exists for our benefit.
No, it states clearly that there is a difference between betrothed and unbetrothed. I've asked you before, but I'll ask you again: what is the word for a betrothed woman (in Deuteronomy 22:23)? Now what is the word in 22:28? Because the KJV clearly differentiates between the status of the woman, not the manner of the sex:
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 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.
25 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.
26 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:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 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;
29 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.
It ends there. There is no stipulation for if she cried out. None.
Not according to the link you gave me. According to the link you gave me, taphas means MANIPULATE, CAPTURE, SEIZE, HOLD, STOP, SURPRISE... that's your link.
Either taphas includes rape, or it's not addressed at all, indicating its complete unimportance to the male, Middle Eastern mind. Which modern day Islam has upheld with great fidelity.
God is the source of all love.
Your question is like asking Why do you use language when speaking words?
A lie reflects the character of the liar—it has no necessary relationship with the recipient.
Sin is forgiven through repentance.
Look, the idea of a theistic, unalterable celestial dictatorship may comfort some, but in no way is it parallel with freedom and self-determination.
Murder and rape are wrong because the boss says so.
How crude.
Oh really? Lying about Anne Frank hiding in your basement is equal to lying about where you buried the Lindberg baby?
No, “taphas” means capturing by manipulation (stratagem); “khazaq” is capturing by force. The physical sex act is illustrated by the word “shakab”. I have already pointed this out. Words do not translate from one language to another with precisely the same meaning.
And since English “rape” actually comes from Latin “rapere”, which means to take by force, it is closer to Hebrew “khazaq”. (“Ravish” has the same meaning. Both are derived from English common law.) So what we today call “statutory rape” is not derived from that meaning; that was called “carnal abuse” in the past in the English-speaking world.
That's not what your link said. It said taphas comes from the root for manipulation, capture, seize, hold, stop, surprise... manipulation is only one of the WAYS you can capture.
The proof is in the fact that there is no verse anywhere that indicates that the sentence for raping an unbetrothed virgin is different than the sentence for seducing her. It's all covered under "marry her" because it's all the same to them.
If this is not the case prove it. Don't "infer" ... show me. For the third time, show me where it differentiates between raping an UNBETROTHED virgin and seducing one.
That’s precisely what my link said. Trying to redefine “taphas” by another meaning of “capture” (which has multiple meanings; the dictionary definition made that clear) when it only has one meaning of that word is intellectually dishonest; you cannot make “khazaq” become a synonym of “taphas” by a dishonest and utterly inaccurate backtranslation.
You yourself do not possess proof that the penalty for violent sexual assault by a male on any female no matter her status of betrothal, even by everything written in Deuteronomy 22, is anything but death. And again, using modern definitions of “rape” is also bad backtranslation, even into English.
Is it justifiable (without alternative) to slaughter Amalekite children, and if not, on what moral basis you make the claim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.