You are absolutely correct. I’ve heard many people quote Leviticus as evidence that homosexuality is wrong but then also think it’s an abhorrent idea that a woman who is a virgin that is raped must marry her rapist.
But that aside, there is also the issue that circumstances have changed:
> Among ancient cultures virginity was highly prized, and a woman who had been raped had little chance of marrying. These laws forced the rapist to provide for their victim.
Paternity can now be determined far more easily, so virginity is no longer as prized. Women can more easily within society "be cared for", either by themselves, or the state; so its not as important to force a marriage. Divorcing from this context is a misrepresentation of the original law and its intention.
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
The people who wrote the NIV know a lot more than me about translating texts and whatnot. Apparently the immutable Word of God is not so clear when competing experts disagree over the meaning of verses dealing with morality.
I’ll bet everyone who uses Leviticus to condemn homosexuality isn’t as nuanced on the meaning of those verses as you are on this one. It is curious that you chose to write about the nuance on interpreting the verse in Deuteronomy but not the one in Leviticus. This undergirds my point about picking and choosing.
Furthermore, when you write things like:
Paternity can now be determined far more easily, so virginity is no longer as prized. Women can more easily within society "be cared for", either by themselves, or the state; so its not as important to force a marriage. Divorcing from this context is a misrepresentation of the original law and its intention.
You implicitly suggest that God was unwilling or incapable of telling his people to change their ways to be more moral/correct. One of the underpinnings of most Christians’ beliefs is the idea of God’s immutability and His righteousness. Are you suggesting that what God once considered moral is no longer moral?
sure, but are you talking about the word of god, or the words in the bible.
I was going off the KJB, as derived from Hebrew, so it would make more sense to look at the original Hebrew.
I'm not sure why you pay more attention an translation produced by an American businessman in the 70s; The previous link I provided even discusses the issue of "ḥāzaq" vs "tāpas". The WP page for the NIV even details the various scholars taking issue with it, e.g.:
> Mark Given, a professor of religious studies at Missouri State University, criticized the NIV for "several inaccurate and misleading translations" as many sentences and clauses are paraphrased, rather than translated from Hebrew and Greek.
Therein lies the rub. All translations have critics. All of them are wrong in some way according to some expert. Pick the one you like. Pick the translator you like. While you quote a professor who knows much more than me it doesn’t mean much since equally qualified experts were involved in writing the NIV and every other version. And they translated it differently than this professor would have. What we have is a bunch of experts disagreeing with each other.
What I’m left with is one immutable fact: the Bible - whichever version you choose - is wrong according to some expert who is a Christian.
I don’t care about the Bible. I’m not particular about any versions of it. I picked NIV because its translation was different than the one you liked. I was making a point. I think you must be deliberately missing it.
1. Experts were involved in making NIV. Those experts were Christians.
2. You have a Christian expert who doesn’t like their translation.
Put those two facts together and you have, necessarily, ambiguity. It’s not that I think there is ambiguity on what constitutes what scripture says it’s that there is ambiguity. I’m not even talking about different interpretations of what the collection of words mean. There’s ambiguity in what the words actually are.
Then there’s the fact that the Catholic Bible is different than the Protestant one which is different than the Coptic Christian Bible which is different than….etc.
Your knowledge of the history of the inspiration and canonicity of the Bible is quite poor.
If you were to be real honest with yourself you will realize that the reason you like one expert over another is because their belief about the proper translation is more palatable to you. This is an example of picking and choosing what to believe when it comes to religion. Which is what I said in the original post I made.
What do you mean by "liked"? The christian expert didn't "like" their translation, because it was inauthentic.
> it’s that there is ambiguity
ok, then doesn't this undercut your claim that the bible says women must merry their rapists?
> Your knowledge of .. is quite poor.
You decided to make an entirely different point about the bible. In fact you previously implied the bible was the word of god, why is it my knowledge that is poor?
> the reason you like one expert over another
how do you figure? what do you know about me? how are you able to judge two experts; you haven't responded at all in the meat of the issue, the post about the Hebrew KJB is based on, just repeating "experts experts experts" like it's some damming logic puzzle - it's not, experts can be wrong, biased, or not experts at all.
> This is an example of picking and choosing..
like picking "1 + 1 = 2" over "1 + 1 = 3"? you have to demonstrate I picked one interpretation because of personal bias rather than merit, which you haven't. Rather, it is ironically your bias, waiting to make this point, that has resulted in you interpreting things this way.
A person who believes the bible is the word of god has to decide what they mean by bible. They have to decide on which translation to use, then which version: coptic, catholic, protestant, orthodox - they each differ on what the books of the bible are. Once they decide which collection of words constitute “the word or god” they have to decide on what they mean. The criteria used to decide this usually, mostly boils down to which one is the most palatable to them personally.
You and others believe NIV is a bad translation but the people who made the translation believe otherwise. All of this, including everything I wrote above, results in ambiguity and confusion for the masses. If god does exist then he is profoundly incompetent at delivering his message. He is a moron who is very bad at writing clear instructions and is incredibly immoral given the laws he had the Israelites follow. All versions and translations of the bible contain immoral rules and are poorly written and unclear.
> It is curious that you chose to write about the nuance on interpreting the verse in Deuteronomy but not the one in Leviticus. This undergirds my point about picking and choosing.
Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate to "You wrote about one nuance of the bible, but not another", am I somehow beholden to comment on everything all at once?
But here's the point: The comparison is apples and oranges. Even the phrasing of the NIV "He can never divorce her as long as he lives" implies it is intended as a burden on him, so it appears to me that your interpretation is wrong. There is no reasoning behind the "homosexuality" line, nor much else in the bible about that subject, so what more can I say?
> One of the underpinnings of most Christians’ beliefs is the idea of God’s immutability and His righteousness.
Does that include the words of the bible being the literal word of god? This is provably false wrt the KJB and derivatives, so any such Christians would undoubtedly be referring to the original Hebrew. Not sure that's "most Christians", in the US anyway.
> You implicitly suggest that God was unwilling or incapable of telling his people to change their ways
Unless he send some kind of official messenger with an updated set of rules ;-)
> Are you suggesting that what God once considered moral is no longer moral?
perhaps what once was immoral had unstated conditions that no longer became relevant e.g. the very context I suggest.
Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate…
My perspective is perhaps clouded by the fact that there are, in my view, two equally morally repugnant verses that were referenced. That you chose to comment on the one and not the other was suggestive to me. I don’t know you so I can’t possibly know what you really believe. I have to get clues by what is said and unsaid. I suspect, but don’t know, that Biblical condemnation of homosexuality isn’t as worthwhile to rationalize away to you as it is to defend the Bible indicating that female virgins who are “raped” must marry their “rapist”.
…perhaps what once was immoral had unstated conditions that no longer became relevant e.g. the very context I suggest.
My morality is so screwed up and deranged that I don’t think there is ever a circumstance in which it is moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist. I’m an atheist so this probably explains why I can’t understand the reason for putting this verse in the Bible to begin with.
Let me be specific and somewhat mocking. At one point in time God thought it was moral to force some rape victims to marry their rapist but no longer thinks this is the case. Somewhere along the line, around the time of widespread government support services in some countries, He decided it’s no longer ok. God sounds incompetent.
Personally, I would have written something like,
Society must care for rape victims for as long as they live. And not force them to marry their rapist or to be viewed as damaged goods or in any other sort of asinine way.
This is the gist of what I’d have written. Don’t nitpick it though since this is much better than what the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe could come up with.
> that Biblical condemnation of homosexuality isn’t as worthwhile to rationalize away to you as it is to defend the Bible indicating that female virgins who are “raped” must marry their “rapist”.
I'm not sure what you imply by "rationalize away" - the source of the bible doesn't say what you claim it does. Rather than answer to that point you psychoanalyse me; what demons are you fighting?
Am I not allowed to correct you unless you first determine in the "right" side? Sorry, I don't play that game - take it or leave it.
> I don’t think there is ever a circumstance in which it is moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist
Great! neither does the bible. Ask Howard Long why his committee decided to put that in their version.
> Personally, I would have written something like..
…the source of the bible doesn't say what you claim it does..
You are being daft. I don’t claim it says this. The Christian experts who made the NIV claim it.
I know of no Christian who thinks the Bible (not translations of it) is not the divinely inspired written word of God. Meaning, that God wrote it. Not literally jotting down the word but divinely guiding the authors. That is, the words, meaning, and intent come from Him.
You are being deliberately obtuse. I’m not going to respond anymore to you. And if you think at any point I psychoanalyzed you then you don’t know what that word really means.
All you need to know is that nobody goes into the much depth for verses they like, such as something motivational and heartwarming in Psalms
The answer is “it’s open to interpretation”, specifically your interpretation of the way you want to have power over others, or let them have power over you
so lets just fast forward to that part and move on. unless you want to control people, in which case I’m amused
