Gotta love it ! Of course we're all misinterpreting it and taking it out of context -_- ... christian have the right answers ! Of course the "NIV" is a wrong bible, wrong translation ! ... this is coming from an EX-Christian that is now an agnostic !
You also skimmed very quickly over the NASB word usage, implying that the phrase would, could or is being used for "Capture, Captured, Caught, Grasp, Grasps, Handle, Handled, Hold, Lay Hold, Occupy, Overlay, PROFANE, surely be captured etc etc.
If the above can't be used in the context of rape then you're kidding yourself.
@MrRastaVibrations No I didn't skim over the NASB usage. Like I said I'm a King James Onlyist. and since the word used was FROM THE KING JAMES, I used the concordance which RELATES to the KING JAMES.
I also showed how this word was NEVER used in any verse in the bible for rape and how the actual verse for rape 2 or 3 verses prior to the one being challenged is the actual rape where a completely different word is used. Furthermore that word is used for several rape verses.
@Krazie316 what about all the verses that say stone someone for working on the sabath, kill non-beleivers, women should stay silent in the church. Dude, face it, as a black man, you were brainwashed into the white man belief in the church. The africans had more spiritual way of life before the white man purchased them. If you wanna believe in god, thats cool. but burry the bible
@WorldMilitia Killing non-believers is in the Koran, snf the fact that you don't know that The bible is based on a JEWISH belief, not white man's belief, is enough do not even worry about the rest of your post.
I'm not brainwashed, I'm perfectly fine and made my own decision based on my studies
@MrRastaVibrations No I'm afraid I DID NOT leave anything out I read ALL of the words HOWEVER not all of the words fit in with the context of EVERY usage of the word. Those are all only English words associated with the use of the Greek word. Context of this verse however shows it's a figurative (ideological, not literal) verb. I backed this up with the cross referencing scripture given in the video.
NIV "28 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[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives".
@MrRastaVibrations it's a contradiction to other translations like the NLT Deu 22:28 "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, Deu 22:29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. [fn] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28If 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; 29Then 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.
Why is the man paying fifty shekels to the father? It says, the man must not divorce her yet, in Deuteronomy 24 it says you can divorce women in another
@MrEmeraldfusion in verse 24 it sais nothing of divorce. if you're reffering to 23-24 what happened here is they were put to death because 1 of 3 things.
1. both to die because she consented
2. She was already promised to someone (engaged)
3. Therefore he also must die for because he took a man's wife to be
@Krazie316 You in this video >> "Enjoy, share, and use this to destroy the lies of the atheist and homosexual mafia .... that present false information against the bible."
Question for you:
Do you condone the rules for the israelites in these stories where death by stoning is prescribed as punishment even in cases of nonrape? This video explaining the difference in rape versus "manipulation", but doesn't really give your opinion on the hebrew laws.
I'm a hardcore atheist, I think the bible is horribly immoral, and you appear to be a homophobic asshole, but in this case you SEEM to be right on this issue. When I first looked at that verse, I didn't think it was clear it was talking about rape at all. After watching your video, it does appear that it probably isn't talking about rape.
Well, this could have all been avoided if not for that tower of babble-confuse their language (but then permit satellites and space exploration) debacle.
One key observation. The bible states that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be establish. To all the atheists that say that this proves that God approves of rape is laughable. Where are the other references? Second, God approves of sex in the marriage covenant so they are clueless on this matter. Good video.
@2010zombiez Here we have another example of how atheists neve3r actually read or pay attention. This video debunks the very notion you just tried to push, lol
you see most atheist dont like to be proven wrong so they would try to find another route and say that your information was incorrect and that they are infallible. arrogance or what?
@FujiwaraNoGo Obviously you didn;t watch the video because you would have never attempted to go this failed route.
it says IF SHE CRIES NOT. the woman in the field who couldn't even be heard DID CRY (hypothetically because this is just an explanation of what should be done should such a thing happen, it's not actually saying it happened).
Why would a woman cry in the field where she can;t even be heard but not cry in a city where she can to be saved?
hmmm.... well how come I read in my bible that is written in the contemporary language translation exactly as follows 22:28-29 When a man comes upon a virgin who has never been engaged and grabs and rapes her and they are found out, the man who raped her has to give her father fifty pieces of silver. He has to marry her because he took advantage of her. And he can never divorce her.
@Krazie316 How can you decide what version is the correct one ? Why are there so many versions ?
KJV : 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.
@Krazie316 One version says "Kill them both", another say " They both must marry", a third says " Kill only the man ", a fourth says " Kill the woman". How the hell can you know what is the correct one ? Most bible versions tells to kill both. Check for urself. Is this the justice of the biblical god, who obviously is confused ?
@pakifighter You are confused. This is a product of not reading. and what's sad is I read it all for you and you still don't get it. **FACEPALM** Go back and read the whole set of versus again.
@Krazie316 How do you know that KJV is the "right" bible. When the majority of the christian scholars agree upon the fact that the KJV version is the one with most fabrications ?
@Krazie316 The RSV has been called the most accurate and closest rendering of the original. If you don want some examples of the defects, Id love to share them with you. But I also challenge you, if you really are a truth seeking person, I challenge you to search for yourself. You wont find two bibles that are alike. Ahmed Deedat has already proven these facts, but clearly you havent given any of that a thought.
@pakifighter lololol I love how you copy/pasted yields information from a failure of a source.
First of all older does not mean better and this is why:
You have 2 books one you hardly ever use and another you use frequently. Which one breakdown down and needs replacement first? in parallel, the King James version uses that which came from the texts receptus or majority text. It was a direct translation from Hebrew Greek and Aramic which the KJV translators spoke.
@pakifighter the Alexandrian manuscripts used in all the revised and new versione are the failed ones. All one has to do is look in Acts to find out about the Alaxandrians. You can't challenge me with copy/pasted knowledge when there are a ton of videos and sources proving what you're trying to push.
Start with looking for Hounds video "why the king James version" there are plenty mote on my favorites somewhere. When I get home I'll bother finding them
@Krazie316 So the documents that are closest to the source, which the RSV is based on, are failed manuscripts, but the bible that is based on scriptures rewritten by men is real ? Amazing. You fail to defend your "holy" book.
@pakifighter WRONG, that are hardly ever used will of course last longer. the KJV wasnt re written it was copied word for wordfrom the original Greek and Hebrew. The Alaxandrians manuscript were re written because they didn't like a lot of what wed in the original bible.
Good study Krazie! thank you for setting it straight. Athiests and religious people alike gotta realize that just because the bible is a biography of people's lives, don't mean it's approving of their actions!! Yhwh(God/LORD) doesn't condone every little thing that David, Abraham, or anyone else in the Bible did, accept for Yeshua(jesus) of course.
Thank you for this wonderful video. And your studying is phenominal. You have just encouraged me to study more deeply, but I'm busy debating the Muslims, do you have any advice for me as to what I need to study to better debate them?
@songwriter4artists Nay I haven't debated muslims so I wouldn't know which direction to point you in. I specialize in homosexuality for the most part. Other than that if someone presents a false cotradiction I'll study to debunk it unless I already know how
If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
@lizazoon No =t really, not at all, Even in todays time if you steal in the Middle East in some places you'll have you're hand chopped off, other places have other punishments, etc.
In the long run sin is sin and will ultimately lead to death
@theneonfire That one's extremele easy as well in fact viewing the comments history here, also the video I made in response to Freethinker covers that set.
Along with the overall rape case debunking site:
atheismisdead. blogspot. com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-evilbiblecom-and-dan. html
Fair enough on the quotes you covered, but just out of curiosity could someone cover Numbers 31:17-18 please? 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
let alone the very wiki article you spoke of lists it is still in arguments on what issues cause stockholm syndrome.
Not only is your argument busted and incomplete, yet a baseless assertion by which your arguing with feelings not facts, just like the failbots that attempted to accuse 22:28 of accepted rape.
A primitive root (possibly rather ident. With anah through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows) -- abase self, afflict(-ion, self), answer (by mistake for anah), chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, sing (by mistake for anah), speak (by mistake for anah), submit self, weaken, X in any wise.
The very fact you left out the entire set if words showing figuratives and literals shows us your capability to be intellectually honest and that is zero.
That being said that's the last lie you'll ever spread here
@Krazie316 Left out? Highlighted rather. I did encourage you and your viewers to check it out. I've got nothing to hide. I reckon you mean by this latter part that I'm being blocked. Coward.
@Celephais42 no I'm far from a coward, I've dismantled every argument you've thrown except the Judges which I will make a video addressing later.
I can't sit and argue with someone that attempts to frame a verse with a tiny portion of words that don't even go in context as the one I gave which is included in the set that you left out
what you have essentially done is the same thing most atheist did/do with Deuteronomy 22:28, take a situation far out of it's context because your basic present understanding of human emotion and actions.
It's simply a logical fallacy especially after deep study is performed and atheist logic regarding the bible demmed silly
I do know what stockholm syndrome and it doesn't match at all especially if the women are morning for a month, your argument is based of feelinfs not facts.
You can't and won't provide evidence these women were raped, forced agains their will thus you rely heavily on baseless assertions.
The argument is invalid and has no place in serious scripture study
@Krazie316 Mourning for a month, in her captor's home= prolonged exposure, one of the conditions for stockholm syndrome. Match.
Please outline how the mosaic law regarding captive women doesn't match the conditions for stockholm syndrome, because your first swing was a miss.
Without actually identifying these, your responses are merely projections of your own feelings. Otherwise, the psychological manipulation is coercion, and it is rape. Or would you prefer I put out the full argument here?
you didn't offer a rational explanation. for crap, you merely offered a watered down poor excuse of an arugument based on todays ideology and context.
You are arguing by feelings not facts thus the argument is invalid.
I argued the facts, there's no rape at all anywhere even remotely mentioned. Only detailed regulations and provisions for caring for the women
@Krazie316 It is those very detailed regulations that set up the conditions for Stockholm Syndrome. They match perfectly. It's not a baseless argument based on emotion.
From the way this conversation has gone, I wager you don't know what Stockholm syndrome is, let alone the conditions that cause it.
Moreover, since the emotions of the women would be an influence on their motivations in marrying their captors, they must be taken into account in a logical discourse, especially pre-Aristotle
Good job using the concordance to prove these God denialists wrong brother. The Word is strong and true! Accusations made against it return to the accuser.
Atheists try as they like but can never make the bible into a book of evil. It's almost funny, but sad too how they try. It only condemns them though.
actually it's no delusion at all, you just missed the common sensical point if historical context assuming you are the females of thousands of years ago. Thatvis an automatoc fail.
Concerning Judges, it's not about apologrtics yet a matter of deep study as was done on this video to disprove the 22:2i fallacy.
@Krazie316 Again, making the assertion that it is automatic fail doesn't just make it so. You are the one making a positive claim that the women of that time would just welcome the people who killed their families in marriage after a month of mourning. I handed you a perfectly rational argument to explain this, but you don't like it because I also handed you what it implies. The burden of an alternative explanation is on you. Or is this another Goddidit thing?
We've already destroyed the rape arguments thus we know for sure the bile doesn't codone rape, now you're being intellectually dishonest.
As for the Judges argument I know I saying something wrong being there's no bible in front of me, but I've refuted that one long ago while others have too.
@Krazie316 "destroyed the rape argument" is your own delusion. I'll be willing to grant you that its a grey area at this point, subject to individual interpretation.
Likewise, the Judges argument is in the same position, as it requires jumping through apologetic hoops.
Christians are the majority, but Christianity is becoming more secular. Link in PMs.
Hope you noticed the difference between distrusted, and untrustworthy
@Krazie316 Atheism and other non-religious (agnostics, humanists and deists) are the fastest growing segment of the US population, while Christianity is on the decline. 9% of adults and 0.5% of young people say they hold a biblical worldview, according to the Barna Group.
Destroy the Judges argument all you want. Your worldview is on the decline, and its just nice to know that YOU don't condone rape or human sacrifice, whatever your bible actually says on the matters.
yes Judaism is correct, Christianity came after Christ unfortunately for you the semantics game doesn't work agaisnt my point.
Besides I'm at work throwing these responses together thus the "historical context" punch is only a product of me not paying attention or I would have said Judaism
the failure here is no children were sacrificed for MY god thus you would be a liarsoo many dactors are involved it's not funny for example the fact a MALE was required for that kind of sacrifice and nowhere does it say God homored or told him to make that kind of vow.
@Krazie316 I would be a liar? You and your spectators here can read Judges 11 and see for yourselves the story of Jepthah sacrificing his daughter to your God in exchange for victory in war.
The fact that he WAS victorious is the key indicator that God honored this vow. Not only that, but your omniscient God would have known that it would have been Jepthah's daughter, not a servant as Jepthah himself hoped.
Do your job, and respond when you can. I'm in no rush
Brilliant video. This is what "studying Scripture" looks like. You are totally being a Berean here, & we must be as well (Acts 17:11)!
In verse 25, the Hebrew word for "force" is "chazaq". It's tense stem is "Hiphil", which is the causative action for the verb. It suggests that the man "used his strength to force himself upon her".
This word is NOT used in verse 28 (as you have pointed out).
I'll be putting out some videos soon on O.T. criticisms as well. The first will be about slavery.
v@Celephais42 you ain't gettin away with that fallacy.
Those people were among the most evil people ever sacrificing their children to false Gods, God had every right to destroy them.
Now they weren't exploiiting them to stockholm syndrome, they gave the virgins a chance to live and convert to Christianity from their wicked practice, a place to stay, a husband, etc.
It is indeed an atheist fallacy to try to apply injustice where it's not.
Asserting there was rape where not an ounce of physical force against the woman's will is indicated it's a straight fallacy. It contradicts the very deuteronomy versus where a rapist is to be stoned and is ridiculous.
The only way an atheist could try to push that fallacy is by ignoring historical context
@Krazie316 But if people sacrifice their children to YOUR god its ok? Judges 11
They would have converted to Judaism, not Christianity, so much for historical context.
People can do a quick wikipedia search on stockholm syndrome and read the Deut verse you supplied and make their own decision. Just asserting that its not the case doesn't make it so.
Psychological manipulation can be more powerful than physical force. See battered spouses as an example.
In addition - the "and THEY are found out" bit in v28 tells us that the act spoken of is consentual. And obviously, a *rape* WILL be found out. The evidence will be readily seen on the girl.....as well as the boy (man).
Not only this, but to interpret v28 as a rape means that God wants the father of the rape victim to just stand by and except 50 shekels of silver and a proposal from his little girl's rapist.
This whole misconception comes from people who misread the English of the King James Bible (because they hate God's word) and the idiotic, unqualified, infidels that translated the NIV and other new versions, which gives skeptics an excuse to say the Bible condones rape. No, Satan's bibles condone rape. The Bible doesn't. It's nice that the Hebrew can be used for extra support and all, but this isn't a problem for anybody that can read 3rd grade English.
Deu 22 is bad bad place to make a case for God endorsed rape to begin with. Of course Israelite women would be protected, as they are still God's chosen. A much better case is when the women are not members of the selected group, or in the case of Numbers 31:17-18, young girls. I find it especially interesting that Strong's doesn't give clarification on "la chem" as it is used in that instance, but a search of "la chem" through Strong's gives the definition of "devour, destroy, make war upon"
...the men were to:Provide them with housing.Allow them one month to mourn.Then they may get married.And if they later divorce, they were to go free and not be mistreated (see Deuteronomy 21:10-14).No rape at all anywhere. Rather, cleansing after a war, the provision of a home, time to mourn, marriage and, if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment.
@Krazie316 So hypothetically, if you had a younger virgin sister, and I came and killed your whole family except her, then allowed her one month to mourn you, I could marry her and it wouldn't be rape.
BS! Familiarize yourself with Stockholm Syndrome. What Deut: 21:10-14 advises is exploiting that phenomenon. It's the same kind of psychological trick used by other cults.
@Celephais42 not at all, the hard thing for people to understand is the difference between the way people thought back then, versus now.
This is the error in everyone that assumes she is being raped where there was no rape mentioned.
untill you can provide conclusive evidence she was rapes and forced into it (where force was nowhere to be found) then you're simply making bassless assertions based on emotions not founded by historical context
@Krazie316 Again I say familiarize yourself with Stockholm Syndrome. In the case of a person suffering from stockholm syndrome, they (or in this case she) would say that she married of her own volition. It is still subtle coercion, the minimum required amount of influence to qualify as rape.
Ironically, you ask for conclusive evidence, when the only "conclusive evidence" to support the bible is archeological evidence. By that reasoning, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are real because NYC exists
@Celephais42 Again I say familiarize yourself with historical context, you cannot make a basless assertion based off of todays standards that is logically fallacious.
There's plenty of archeological evidence for the bible thus I would say it's a win, however this is not a prove God debate it is a debate of the bible does not condone rape, which it doesn't.
@Celephais42 don't take my response as an attack, what I'm just trying to say via the detailed regulations of how to treat women of conquored towns or people, they new they had nothing, they were moreso about starting and continuing a bloodline as supposed to being filled with the kind of new age feelings we have now.
Look at the decisions the people of the biblical times make throughout the bible, it all has a historical context not comparable to ours so it sounds wrong but wasn't for them
@Krazie316 But today's standards DO apply if we are starting from a foundation that your God is real, via God's omniscience. We have today identified Stockholm syndrome as a real phenomenon. By your worldview, this would have been something that God not only would have known about, but would have created as a characteristic of humans. Thus God's Law regarding captured women would be willfully exploiting this characteristic. I'll give the ignorant participants a pass, but not your deity.
@Celephais42 id doesn't matter because it's out of historical context let alone the fact they were under Mosaic law which was for a specific people for a specific time back then. Not only are we not under that law, but the fact people thought acted and dressed differently is evidence it is faulty to assume off of todays logic let alone no indication of force
@Krazie316 Careful. You might inadvertently undermine arguments for other situations. Laws "for a specific people at a specific time back then" could be a pretty damaging argument against any of the bronze age social norms that you seem to want other people to conform to now. They "thought acted and dressed differently" after all. The atheism I can understand, but how could you continue a crusade against homosexuality after just making such an argument?
@Celephais42 actually no it won't because the lifestyle of homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well as the old.
Trust me you're not the first and won't be the last everything you have said and will say I've already addressed it's actually quite repetative which is why I usually keep comments locked and tend to ignore those arguments.
@Krazie316 But the NT is still a 1500-1600 year old compilation (approx 2k old when taken from the time each book was written) from a time when people thought acted and dressed differently. When you cry "historical context" as a counter argument, you've just opened the door to the same counter-argument from anyone who doesn't follow your 2000 year old documents.
@Celephais42 I don't think you're understanding where I'm coming from and as usual I feel like I wasting comment space for all the other commentators.
There is a BIG difference between Mosaic Law and the New Covenant, let alone there still being a historical context greatly different from the NT till now let alone from Mosaic Law till now.
Nobody is asking you to follow the bible which is a very credible set of documents, I'm pointing out a fallacy presented by atheists
@Krazie316 Two hundred years ago you would have been put to death for knowing how to read. The historical context argument gives that position a pass, which is unacceptable. And yet you want people to follow the positions that exceed that time difference ten times over?
@Celephais42 No the historical context position does not give a pass for that because bofore that there was no such law and blacks had their own language.
there's no connection because your example speaks of injustice while the other speaks of what people would ASSUME happened with no mention of it happening.
that is a fallacious comparison.
Anyhow I feel further discusion on this already discussed topic will only lead in circles so I'll stop with that so people can actuallly...
@Krazie316 Butchering a woman's entire family, and then exploiting Stockholm Syndrome to get her to marry her captor IS an injustice. And yes the conversation has come round back to where it was before you started the fallacious historical context argument. IF mosaic law was dictated by God, then God condones psychological coercion prior to a sex act, along with the genocide that leads up to the conditions for that psychological manipulation. It's not an atheist fallacy.
Your reasoning is very much a fallacy because you're assuming that you have proper understanding of the conditions, which you do not. The conditions and culture of those times would have to be the exact same way as it is today for your argument to make any sense, but historically, the conditions were NOT. There, you cannot logically assume any psychological manipulation ever took place. You have no good evidence to back that up at all. It's that simple.
@Krazy another aspect of this is that you say that it can't mean the same thing because the word forced is not used in both instances, but in literature(and i expect this to be especially true in one as lengthy as the bible) use of the same word over and over is avoided so as not to be redundant, thus the use of synonyms, but "lay hold on her" sounds alote like "grab her", "take her" as if she where a possession that had no say in the matter, which was generally the case throughout history.
@roboziggo No, I said it's not the same because everywhere the bible is talking about rape they use the Hebrew word chazaq, not taphas, NOWHERE in the bible is taphas used in describing a rape.
@ReliableLojic that is biblos. com my brother, that website is like a one piece arsenal.
but I also use it in addition with biblegateway because biblos only does one verse at a time because the information from verse to verse is soo robust in biblos.
But biblegateway allows you to format the versus in the exact order that you like as many as you like all on the same page.
I'll do a video about how I wield both maybe today even
@Krazie316 actually crazy heres how you share vids, 1.click share 2. hit email then a buch of youtube usernames come up and just hit your friends contacts and there ya go. I had trouble with this as well. stupid new youtube redesign, great vid and God bless
you sure are Krazie! that just sounded like a slight nuance between forcefull violent rape and intimidation and pretty much condones MANIPULATIONS (to use your words) into sex of young girls;
dam·sel nounLiterary; a young woman or girl; a maiden, originally one of gentle or noble birth.or flat out rape of non-noble women, destroyed huh? try again Krazy, and your obvious hate for homosexuality is sickning,i bet you don't feel the same way about discrimination against blacks!
@Krazie316 why do you bother posting a response if your just dismiss what i said?
i'm sorry you can't seem to make sense of it i expected better of you, you use definitions of the words in the scripture, so did i, and a part in there translates into; manipulation of little girls into have sex is ok, and your also just going to dismiss the parallel between discrimination of sexual orientation and that of race?
@roboziggo I didn't just dismiss what you said, ytou didn't make sense because the translation you provided is nowhere to be found in Strong's concordance dictionary so I'm forced to call shinanigans
Rofl, man atheist's always try and sound so "smart" and "rational" but in the process just sound like blundering fools. Did you see when that guy went on webcam and was holding up a cup saying "am I holding up a cup?" the atheists were saying "oh it's all subjective, it might not be a cup it might be a bunch of molecules that resemble a cup" or something ... and everyone in the room was just like WHAT THE HELL?! Professing themselves to be wise they became fools! Hehe :P
Gotta love it ! Of course we're all misinterpreting it and taking it out of context -_- ... christian have the right answers ! Of course the "NIV" is a wrong bible, wrong translation ! ... this is coming from an EX-Christian that is now an agnostic !
LeRationnel27 1 month ago
@LeRationnel27 Glad you agree ;-)
Krazie316 1 month ago
You also skimmed very quickly over the NASB word usage, implying that the phrase would, could or is being used for "Capture, Captured, Caught, Grasp, Grasps, Handle, Handled, Hold, Lay Hold, Occupy, Overlay, PROFANE, surely be captured etc etc.
If the above can't be used in the context of rape then you're kidding yourself.
MrRastaVibrations 3 months ago
@MrRastaVibrations No I didn't skim over the NASB usage. Like I said I'm a King James Onlyist. and since the word used was FROM THE KING JAMES, I used the concordance which RELATES to the KING JAMES.
I also showed how this word was NEVER used in any verse in the bible for rape and how the actual verse for rape 2 or 3 verses prior to the one being challenged is the actual rape where a completely different word is used. Furthermore that word is used for several rape verses.
Krazie316 2 months ago
@Krazie316 what about all the verses that say stone someone for working on the sabath, kill non-beleivers, women should stay silent in the church. Dude, face it, as a black man, you were brainwashed into the white man belief in the church. The africans had more spiritual way of life before the white man purchased them. If you wanna believe in god, thats cool. but burry the bible
WorldMilitia 2 months ago
@WorldMilitia Killing non-believers is in the Koran, snf the fact that you don't know that The bible is based on a JEWISH belief, not white man's belief, is enough do not even worry about the rest of your post.
I'm not brainwashed, I'm perfectly fine and made my own decision based on my studies
Krazie316 2 months ago
And you also left out "Seize, Chiefly to Capture, to use unwarrantably, hold, stop, surprise, take.
When those words are used in relation to sex, it sounds like rape to me.
MrRastaVibrations 3 months ago
@MrRastaVibrations No I'm afraid I DID NOT leave anything out I read ALL of the words HOWEVER not all of the words fit in with the context of EVERY usage of the word. Those are all only English words associated with the use of the Greek word. Context of this verse however shows it's a figurative (ideological, not literal) verb. I backed this up with the cross referencing scripture given in the video.
Krazie316 2 months ago
@MrRastaVibrations correction, HEBREW, not Greek
Krazie316 2 months ago
NIV "28 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[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives".
MrRastaVibrations 3 months ago
@MrRastaVibrations Again no real bible study person uses that trash
Krazie316 2 months ago
@MrRastaVibrations it's a contradiction to other translations like the NLT Deu 22:28 "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, Deu 22:29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. [fn] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.
Funnypandalonies 2 months ago
NIV version of the bible says "Rape" - not lie with...
MrRastaVibrations 3 months ago
@MrRastaVibrations Too bad the NIV is garbage, no real bible study person uses that trash full of contradictions
Krazie316 2 months ago
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28If 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; 29Then 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.
Why is the man paying fifty shekels to the father? It says, the man must not divorce her yet, in Deuteronomy 24 it says you can divorce women in another
MrEmeraldfusion 3 months ago
@MrEmeraldfusion in verse 24 it sais nothing of divorce. if you're reffering to 23-24 what happened here is they were put to death because 1 of 3 things.
1. both to die because she consented
2. She was already promised to someone (engaged)
3. Therefore he also must die for because he took a man's wife to be
Krazie316 3 months ago
@Krazie316 You in this video >> "Enjoy, share, and use this to destroy the lies of the atheist and homosexual mafia .... that present false information against the bible."
Question for you:
Do you condone the rules for the israelites in these stories where death by stoning is prescribed as punishment even in cases of nonrape? This video explaining the difference in rape versus "manipulation", but doesn't really give your opinion on the hebrew laws.
talktoyourmamma1 3 months ago
I'm a hardcore atheist, I think the bible is horribly immoral, and you appear to be a homophobic asshole, but in this case you SEEM to be right on this issue. When I first looked at that verse, I didn't think it was clear it was talking about rape at all. After watching your video, it does appear that it probably isn't talking about rape.
Mutex50 4 months ago
@Mutex50 Well you views on the bible are yours, and I can't be homophobic if I fear not homosexuals nor homosexuality
Krazie316 4 months ago
What's the short version of this?
Oscy 4 months ago
Well, this could have all been avoided if not for that tower of babble-confuse their language (but then permit satellites and space exploration) debacle.
roseandserene 5 months ago
One key observation. The bible states that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be establish. To all the atheists that say that this proves that God approves of rape is laughable. Where are the other references? Second, God approves of sex in the marriage covenant so they are clueless on this matter. Good video.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
marry your rapist? this is why im an athiest
2010zombiez 6 months ago
@2010zombiez Here we have another example of how atheists neve3r actually read or pay attention. This video debunks the very notion you just tried to push, lol
Krazie316 6 months ago
@Krazie316 i made the comment before i watched the video srry. every thing he said made sense but i stand by my beliefs and stay athiest
2010zombiez 6 months ago
very well done krazie, i myself dont see how there was any confusion to begin with. obviusly the woman in verse 23 was consenting.
tuvmush 6 months ago
you see most atheist dont like to be proven wrong so they would try to find another route and say that your information was incorrect and that they are infallible. arrogance or what?
supermurloc64 8 months ago
well, whatever helps you sleep at night.
ndjarnag 10 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo Obviously you didn;t watch the video because you would have never attempted to go this failed route.
it says IF SHE CRIES NOT. the woman in the field who couldn't even be heard DID CRY (hypothetically because this is just an explanation of what should be done should such a thing happen, it's not actually saying it happened).
Why would a woman cry in the field where she can;t even be heard but not cry in a city where she can to be saved?
Krazie316 11 months ago
hmmm.... well how come I read in my bible that is written in the contemporary language translation exactly as follows 22:28-29 When a man comes upon a virgin who has never been engaged and grabs and rapes her and they are found out, the man who raped her has to give her father fifty pieces of silver. He has to marry her because he took advantage of her. And he can never divorce her.
nibblesann 1 year ago
@nibblesann because you have the wrong version of the bible. Read the KJV
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 How can you decide what version is the correct one ? Why are there so many versions ?
KJV : 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.
pakifighter 1 year ago
@pakifighter That is an entirely different video all together. But the KJV is the right version
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 One version says "Kill them both", another say " They both must marry", a third says " Kill only the man ", a fourth says " Kill the woman". How the hell can you know what is the correct one ? Most bible versions tells to kill both. Check for urself. Is this the justice of the biblical god, who obviously is confused ?
pakifighter 1 year ago
@pakifighter You are confused. This is a product of not reading. and what's sad is I read it all for you and you still don't get it. **FACEPALM** Go back and read the whole set of versus again.
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 How do you know that KJV is the "right" bible. When the majority of the christian scholars agree upon the fact that the KJV version is the one with most fabrications ?
pakifighter 1 year ago
@pakifighter LOL where's you come up with that nonesense
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 The RSV has been called the most accurate and closest rendering of the original. If you don want some examples of the defects, Id love to share them with you. But I also challenge you, if you really are a truth seeking person, I challenge you to search for yourself. You wont find two bibles that are alike. Ahmed Deedat has already proven these facts, but clearly you havent given any of that a thought.
pakifighter 1 year ago
@pakifighter lololol I love how you copy/pasted yields information from a failure of a source.
First of all older does not mean better and this is why:
You have 2 books one you hardly ever use and another you use frequently. Which one breakdown down and needs replacement first? in parallel, the King James version uses that which came from the texts receptus or majority text. It was a direct translation from Hebrew Greek and Aramic which the KJV translators spoke.
Krazie316 1 year ago
@pakifighter the Alexandrian manuscripts used in all the revised and new versione are the failed ones. All one has to do is look in Acts to find out about the Alaxandrians. You can't challenge me with copy/pasted knowledge when there are a ton of videos and sources proving what you're trying to push.
Start with looking for Hounds video "why the king James version" there are plenty mote on my favorites somewhere. When I get home I'll bother finding them
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 So the documents that are closest to the source, which the RSV is based on, are failed manuscripts, but the bible that is based on scriptures rewritten by men is real ? Amazing. You fail to defend your "holy" book.
pakifighter 11 months ago
@pakifighter WRONG, that are hardly ever used will of course last longer. the KJV wasnt re written it was copied word for wordfrom the original Greek and Hebrew. The Alaxandrians manuscript were re written because they didn't like a lot of what wed in the original bible.
Do some research and learn something
Krazie316 11 months ago
Good study Krazie! thank you for setting it straight. Athiests and religious people alike gotta realize that just because the bible is a biography of people's lives, don't mean it's approving of their actions!! Yhwh(God/LORD) doesn't condone every little thing that David, Abraham, or anyone else in the Bible did, accept for Yeshua(jesus) of course.
YESHUAISMERCIFUL 1 year ago
Thank you for this wonderful video. And your studying is phenominal. You have just encouraged me to study more deeply, but I'm busy debating the Muslims, do you have any advice for me as to what I need to study to better debate them?
songwriter4artists 1 year ago
@songwriter4artists Nay I haven't debated muslims so I wouldn't know which direction to point you in. I specialize in homosexuality for the most part. Other than that if someone presents a false cotradiction I'll study to debunk it unless I already know how
Krazie316 1 year ago
Great video
MrEmeraldfusion 1 year ago
Great job man. I really appreciated this.
twistedbydsign99 1 year ago
how would we know if she cried in the field or not?
billygundum 1 year ago
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon and what exactly might the point be in posting this unrelated verse?
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 : The absolute silliness of Deuteronomy and the OT.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon No =t really, not at all, Even in todays time if you steal in the Middle East in some places you'll have you're hand chopped off, other places have other punishments, etc.
In the long run sin is sin and will ultimately lead to death
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 The bible is not just a book. It`s supposed to be a HOLY book. Language like that, shows it`s not a holy book at all.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon FALSE it shows it's very Holy, your definition of what is holy is what is faulty
Krazie316 1 year ago
So, adultry should be punished by death?
10thAngel 1 year ago
@theneonfire That one's extremele easy as well in fact viewing the comments history here, also the video I made in response to Freethinker covers that set.
Along with the overall rape case debunking site:
atheismisdead. blogspot. com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-evilbiblecom-and-dan. html
Krazie316 1 year ago
Fair enough on the quotes you covered, but just out of curiosity could someone cover Numbers 31:17-18 please? 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Just seems a bit odd to me
theneonfire 1 year ago
great video!.. i think mdean1215 covered this subject on his channel also.. Lord Bless You Krazie316
iToyRobot 1 year ago
Excellent, totally debunked the claim, thumbs up !
CreationistsWON 1 year ago
great. Excellent work. God bless
ahmalala 1 year ago
great. Excellent work. God bless
ahmalala 1 year ago
let alone the very wiki article you spoke of lists it is still in arguments on what issues cause stockholm syndrome.
Not only is your argument busted and incomplete, yet a baseless assertion by which your arguing with feelings not facts, just like the failbots that attempted to accuse 22:28 of accepted rape.
it's all fail
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Deutornomy 21:14 "... because thou hast humbled her"
Humbled - Strong's 6031 - Anah. Short definition: defiled
Exhaustive concordance includes words like depress, force, ravish, hurt.
Can't and won't? Fail?
Take some of the puff our of your chest, porcupine. You'll have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to think yourself out of this one.
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 epic fail son, humbled means depreciate in value.
you have failed and continue to fail sonny, try again
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 I used YOUR biblos tool. Look it up yourself. I would encourage your viewers to do the same.
Or are you just turning away from the very type of evidence you used in the video here because it doesn't match your arguments?
So much for deep study. Amateur.
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 abase self, defile
A primitive root (possibly rather ident. With anah through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows) -- abase self, afflict(-ion, self), answer (by mistake for anah), chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, sing (by mistake for anah), speak (by mistake for anah), submit self, weaken, X in any wise.
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Celephais42
The very fact you left out the entire set if words showing figuratives and literals shows us your capability to be intellectually honest and that is zero.
That being said that's the last lie you'll ever spread here
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Left out? Highlighted rather. I did encourage you and your viewers to check it out. I've got nothing to hide. I reckon you mean by this latter part that I'm being blocked. Coward.
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 no I'm far from a coward, I've dismantled every argument you've thrown except the Judges which I will make a video addressing later.
I can't sit and argue with someone that attempts to frame a verse with a tiny portion of words that don't even go in context as the one I gave which is included in the set that you left out
Krazie316 1 year ago
what you have essentially done is the same thing most atheist did/do with Deuteronomy 22:28, take a situation far out of it's context because your basic present understanding of human emotion and actions.
It's simply a logical fallacy especially after deep study is performed and atheist logic regarding the bible demmed silly
Krazie316 1 year ago
I do know what stockholm syndrome and it doesn't match at all especially if the women are morning for a month, your argument is based of feelinfs not facts.
You can't and won't provide evidence these women were raped, forced agains their will thus you rely heavily on baseless assertions.
The argument is invalid and has no place in serious scripture study
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Mourning for a month, in her captor's home= prolonged exposure, one of the conditions for stockholm syndrome. Match.
Please outline how the mosaic law regarding captive women doesn't match the conditions for stockholm syndrome, because your first swing was a miss.
Without actually identifying these, your responses are merely projections of your own feelings. Otherwise, the psychological manipulation is coercion, and it is rape. Or would you prefer I put out the full argument here?
Celephais42 1 year ago
you didn't offer a rational explanation. for crap, you merely offered a watered down poor excuse of an arugument based on todays ideology and context.
You are arguing by feelings not facts thus the argument is invalid.
I argued the facts, there's no rape at all anywhere even remotely mentioned. Only detailed regulations and provisions for caring for the women
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 It is those very detailed regulations that set up the conditions for Stockholm Syndrome. They match perfectly. It's not a baseless argument based on emotion.
From the way this conversation has gone, I wager you don't know what Stockholm syndrome is, let alone the conditions that cause it.
Moreover, since the emotions of the women would be an influence on their motivations in marrying their captors, they must be taken into account in a logical discourse, especially pre-Aristotle
Celephais42 1 year ago
Good job using the concordance to prove these God denialists wrong brother. The Word is strong and true! Accusations made against it return to the accuser.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
Atheists try as they like but can never make the bible into a book of evil. It's almost funny, but sad too how they try. It only condemns them though.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
actually it's no delusion at all, you just missed the common sensical point if historical context assuming you are the females of thousands of years ago. Thatvis an automatoc fail.
Concerning Judges, it's not about apologrtics yet a matter of deep study as was done on this video to disprove the 22:2i fallacy.
As for atheists I said untrusted
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Again, making the assertion that it is automatic fail doesn't just make it so. You are the one making a positive claim that the women of that time would just welcome the people who killed their families in marriage after a month of mourning. I handed you a perfectly rational argument to explain this, but you don't like it because I also handed you what it implies. The burden of an alternative explanation is on you. Or is this another Goddidit thing?
Celephais42 1 year ago
We've already destroyed the rape arguments thus we know for sure the bile doesn't codone rape, now you're being intellectually dishonest.
As for the Judges argument I know I saying something wrong being there's no bible in front of me, but I've refuted that one long ago while others have too.
We'll shut down you false accusations later
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 please post the link for your source regarding Christians in this coutry.
Every source I know holds this country is dominantmy Christian.
Atheism being on the rise just means more untrusted people, lol according to the fact they are of the most untrusted people
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 "destroyed the rape argument" is your own delusion. I'll be willing to grant you that its a grey area at this point, subject to individual interpretation.
Likewise, the Judges argument is in the same position, as it requires jumping through apologetic hoops.
Christians are the majority, but Christianity is becoming more secular. Link in PMs.
Hope you noticed the difference between distrusted, and untrustworthy
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 Correction. Link in PMs once friend request is approved. YT doesn't like links in comments section.
Celephais42 1 year ago
atheism is on the rise yet they're of the most untrusted people, ROFL good one.
Not to mention we are not under Mosaic law thus your point fails.
Converning judges I'll destroy that when I get home
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Atheism and other non-religious (agnostics, humanists and deists) are the fastest growing segment of the US population, while Christianity is on the decline. 9% of adults and 0.5% of young people say they hold a biblical worldview, according to the Barna Group.
Destroy the Judges argument all you want. Your worldview is on the decline, and its just nice to know that YOU don't condone rape or human sacrifice, whatever your bible actually says on the matters.
Celephais42 1 year ago
Powning atheists once again krazie316. Good stuff.
gworksnell 1 year ago
also the oath was to sacrifice the first thing he saw, he didn't outright say his daughter it just so happened she was the first.
There's an entire page on the tektonics page regarding that issue that dismantles your claim I'll have to post it when I get home
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Feel free. I found it lacking, myself.
Celephais42 1 year ago
wrong again nowhere did God say he approved of the sacrifice nor does it indicate Gid went along with the agreement.
He could have won all on his own.
You're onc e again making baseless unfounded assertions.
Furthermore there isn't even any evidence he actually went through with it
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Judges 11:32 Makes the claim that God delivered the Ammonites into Jepthah's hands.
Judges 11:39 indicates that Jepthah followed through with his vow.
Judges 11:40 even indicates that the young women of Israel had a tradition of lamenting Jepthah's daughter as a result.
Not basing a present ideology on a time thousands of years ago is why atheism is on the rise. Good job
Celephais42 1 year ago
Lastly for the last time you , cannot base a present ideology on a time thousands of years ago that's taking it WAY out of historical context.
Now you are outright claiming to know the minds and hearts of the females of that time and have thus commited a logical fallacy
Krazie316 1 year ago
yes Judaism is correct, Christianity came after Christ unfortunately for you the semantics game doesn't work agaisnt my point.
Besides I'm at work throwing these responses together thus the "historical context" punch is only a product of me not paying attention or I would have said Judaism
Krazie316 1 year ago
the failure here is no children were sacrificed for MY god thus you would be a liarsoo many dactors are involved it's not funny for example the fact a MALE was required for that kind of sacrifice and nowhere does it say God homored or told him to make that kind of vow.
I ton't have time to explain it now being at work
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 I would be a liar? You and your spectators here can read Judges 11 and see for yourselves the story of Jepthah sacrificing his daughter to your God in exchange for victory in war.
The fact that he WAS victorious is the key indicator that God honored this vow. Not only that, but your omniscient God would have known that it would have been Jepthah's daughter, not a servant as Jepthah himself hoped.
Do your job, and respond when you can. I'm in no rush
Celephais42 1 year ago
Brilliant video. This is what "studying Scripture" looks like. You are totally being a Berean here, & we must be as well (Acts 17:11)!
In verse 25, the Hebrew word for "force" is "chazaq". It's tense stem is "Hiphil", which is the causative action for the verb. It suggests that the man "used his strength to force himself upon her".
This word is NOT used in verse 28 (as you have pointed out).
I'll be putting out some videos soon on O.T. criticisms as well. The first will be about slavery.
ChadTheBerean 1 year ago
v@Celephais42 you ain't gettin away with that fallacy.
Those people were among the most evil people ever sacrificing their children to false Gods, God had every right to destroy them.
Now they weren't exploiiting them to stockholm syndrome, they gave the virgins a chance to live and convert to Christianity from their wicked practice, a place to stay, a husband, etc.
It is indeed an atheist fallacy to try to apply injustice where it's not.
Krazie316 1 year ago
Asserting there was rape where not an ounce of physical force against the woman's will is indicated it's a straight fallacy. It contradicts the very deuteronomy versus where a rapist is to be stoned and is ridiculous.
The only way an atheist could try to push that fallacy is by ignoring historical context
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 But if people sacrifice their children to YOUR god its ok? Judges 11
They would have converted to Judaism, not Christianity, so much for historical context.
People can do a quick wikipedia search on stockholm syndrome and read the Deut verse you supplied and make their own decision. Just asserting that its not the case doesn't make it so.
Psychological manipulation can be more powerful than physical force. See battered spouses as an example.
BTW how did they verify virginity?
Celephais42 1 year ago
Nice, Kraz.
In addition - the "and THEY are found out" bit in v28 tells us that the act spoken of is consentual. And obviously, a *rape* WILL be found out. The evidence will be readily seen on the girl.....as well as the boy (man).
Not only this, but to interpret v28 as a rape means that God wants the father of the rape victim to just stand by and except 50 shekels of silver and a proposal from his little girl's rapist.
That ain't happnin'!!!
justchemicalz 1 year ago
This whole misconception comes from people who misread the English of the King James Bible (because they hate God's word) and the idiotic, unqualified, infidels that translated the NIV and other new versions, which gives skeptics an excuse to say the Bible condones rape. No, Satan's bibles condone rape. The Bible doesn't. It's nice that the Hebrew can be used for extra support and all, but this isn't a problem for anybody that can read 3rd grade English.
ChristianTruthHammer 1 year ago
Deu 22 is bad bad place to make a case for God endorsed rape to begin with. Of course Israelite women would be protected, as they are still God's chosen. A much better case is when the women are not members of the selected group, or in the case of Numbers 31:17-18, young girls. I find it especially interesting that Strong's doesn't give clarification on "la chem" as it is used in that instance, but a search of "la chem" through Strong's gives the definition of "devour, destroy, make war upon"
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 I've addressed that one and all the other's that were accused of being rape cases in my response to freethinker.
There was no rape their either God had very detailed rules in dealing with those women: contd....
Krazie316 1 year ago
...the men were to:Provide them with housing.Allow them one month to mourn.Then they may get married.And if they later divorce, they were to go free and not be mistreated (see Deuteronomy 21:10-14).No rape at all anywhere. Rather, cleansing after a war, the provision of a home, time to mourn, marriage and, if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment.
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 So hypothetically, if you had a younger virgin sister, and I came and killed your whole family except her, then allowed her one month to mourn you, I could marry her and it wouldn't be rape.
BS! Familiarize yourself with Stockholm Syndrome. What Deut: 21:10-14 advises is exploiting that phenomenon. It's the same kind of psychological trick used by other cults.
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 not at all, the hard thing for people to understand is the difference between the way people thought back then, versus now.
This is the error in everyone that assumes she is being raped where there was no rape mentioned.
untill you can provide conclusive evidence she was rapes and forced into it (where force was nowhere to be found) then you're simply making bassless assertions based on emotions not founded by historical context
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Again I say familiarize yourself with Stockholm Syndrome. In the case of a person suffering from stockholm syndrome, they (or in this case she) would say that she married of her own volition. It is still subtle coercion, the minimum required amount of influence to qualify as rape.
Ironically, you ask for conclusive evidence, when the only "conclusive evidence" to support the bible is archeological evidence. By that reasoning, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are real because NYC exists
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 Again I say familiarize yourself with historical context, you cannot make a basless assertion based off of todays standards that is logically fallacious.
There's plenty of archeological evidence for the bible thus I would say it's a win, however this is not a prove God debate it is a debate of the bible does not condone rape, which it doesn't.
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Celephais42 don't take my response as an attack, what I'm just trying to say via the detailed regulations of how to treat women of conquored towns or people, they new they had nothing, they were moreso about starting and continuing a bloodline as supposed to being filled with the kind of new age feelings we have now.
Look at the decisions the people of the biblical times make throughout the bible, it all has a historical context not comparable to ours so it sounds wrong but wasn't for them
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 But today's standards DO apply if we are starting from a foundation that your God is real, via God's omniscience. We have today identified Stockholm syndrome as a real phenomenon. By your worldview, this would have been something that God not only would have known about, but would have created as a characteristic of humans. Thus God's Law regarding captured women would be willfully exploiting this characteristic. I'll give the ignorant participants a pass, but not your deity.
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 id doesn't matter because it's out of historical context let alone the fact they were under Mosaic law which was for a specific people for a specific time back then. Not only are we not under that law, but the fact people thought acted and dressed differently is evidence it is faulty to assume off of todays logic let alone no indication of force
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Careful. You might inadvertently undermine arguments for other situations. Laws "for a specific people at a specific time back then" could be a pretty damaging argument against any of the bronze age social norms that you seem to want other people to conform to now. They "thought acted and dressed differently" after all. The atheism I can understand, but how could you continue a crusade against homosexuality after just making such an argument?
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 actually no it won't because the lifestyle of homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well as the old.
Trust me you're not the first and won't be the last everything you have said and will say I've already addressed it's actually quite repetative which is why I usually keep comments locked and tend to ignore those arguments.
Today, whatever
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 But the NT is still a 1500-1600 year old compilation (approx 2k old when taken from the time each book was written) from a time when people thought acted and dressed differently. When you cry "historical context" as a counter argument, you've just opened the door to the same counter-argument from anyone who doesn't follow your 2000 year old documents.
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 I don't think you're understanding where I'm coming from and as usual I feel like I wasting comment space for all the other commentators.
There is a BIG difference between Mosaic Law and the New Covenant, let alone there still being a historical context greatly different from the NT till now let alone from Mosaic Law till now.
Nobody is asking you to follow the bible which is a very credible set of documents, I'm pointing out a fallacy presented by atheists
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Two hundred years ago you would have been put to death for knowing how to read. The historical context argument gives that position a pass, which is unacceptable. And yet you want people to follow the positions that exceed that time difference ten times over?
Talk about logically fallacious.
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42 No the historical context position does not give a pass for that because bofore that there was no such law and blacks had their own language.
there's no connection because your example speaks of injustice while the other speaks of what people would ASSUME happened with no mention of it happening.
that is a fallacious comparison.
Anyhow I feel further discusion on this already discussed topic will only lead in circles so I'll stop with that so people can actuallly...
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 Butchering a woman's entire family, and then exploiting Stockholm Syndrome to get her to marry her captor IS an injustice. And yes the conversation has come round back to where it was before you started the fallacious historical context argument. IF mosaic law was dictated by God, then God condones psychological coercion prior to a sex act, along with the genocide that leads up to the conditions for that psychological manipulation. It's not an atheist fallacy.
Celephais42 1 year ago
@Celephais42
Your reasoning is very much a fallacy because you're assuming that you have proper understanding of the conditions, which you do not. The conditions and culture of those times would have to be the exact same way as it is today for your argument to make any sense, but historically, the conditions were NOT. There, you cannot logically assume any psychological manipulation ever took place. You have no good evidence to back that up at all. It's that simple.
Tonloc1986 1 year ago 7
@Tonloc1986 I agree
thecursedland 1 year ago
...read other's comments instead of mine when I already have it on video
Krazie316 1 year ago
Great vid, Krazie.
What website were you reading from? I'd like to use it when I start posting vids.
shaunmc3433 1 year ago
@shaunmc3433 that is biblos. com very good tool
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazy another aspect of this is that you say that it can't mean the same thing because the word forced is not used in both instances, but in literature(and i expect this to be especially true in one as lengthy as the bible) use of the same word over and over is avoided so as not to be redundant, thus the use of synonyms, but "lay hold on her" sounds alote like "grab her", "take her" as if she where a possession that had no say in the matter, which was generally the case throughout history.
roboziggo 1 year ago
@roboziggo No, I said it's not the same because everywhere the bible is talking about rape they use the Hebrew word chazaq, not taphas, NOWHERE in the bible is taphas used in describing a rape.
Krazie316 1 year ago
Great vid bro. Learned a lot from this piece. This will come in handy. By the way, Whats the website for the Hebrew Translations? I need it
ReliableLojic 1 year ago
@ReliableLojic that is biblos. com my brother, that website is like a one piece arsenal.
but I also use it in addition with biblegateway because biblos only does one verse at a time because the information from verse to verse is soo robust in biblos.
But biblegateway allows you to format the versus in the exact order that you like as many as you like all on the same page.
I'll do a video about how I wield both maybe today even
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 I just started using it. Its an amazing tool. You really need to make that video on how to use it. Its great man
ReliableLojic 1 year ago
@Krazie316 actually crazy heres how you share vids, 1.click share 2. hit email then a buch of youtube usernames come up and just hit your friends contacts and there ya go. I had trouble with this as well. stupid new youtube redesign, great vid and God bless
gundamfreak4 1 year ago
@gundamfreak4 Thanks a lot, it was truly frustrating, lol
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 no prob
gundamfreak4 1 year ago
you sure are Krazie! that just sounded like a slight nuance between forcefull violent rape and intimidation and pretty much condones MANIPULATIONS (to use your words) into sex of young girls;
dam·sel nounLiterary; a young woman or girl; a maiden, originally one of gentle or noble birth.or flat out rape of non-noble women, destroyed huh? try again Krazy, and your obvious hate for homosexuality is sickning,i bet you don't feel the same way about discrimination against blacks!
roboziggo 1 year ago
@roboziggo Your post makes no sense whatsoeever and I doubt YOU even understand what you posted.
In the end it's a fail because the evidence is clear
Krazie316 1 year ago
@Krazie316 why do you bother posting a response if your just dismiss what i said?
i'm sorry you can't seem to make sense of it i expected better of you, you use definitions of the words in the scripture, so did i, and a part in there translates into; manipulation of little girls into have sex is ok, and your also just going to dismiss the parallel between discrimination of sexual orientation and that of race?
roboziggo 1 year ago
@roboziggo I didn't just dismiss what you said, ytou didn't make sense because the translation you provided is nowhere to be found in Strong's concordance dictionary so I'm forced to call shinanigans
Krazie316 1 year ago
Rofl, man atheist's always try and sound so "smart" and "rational" but in the process just sound like blundering fools. Did you see when that guy went on webcam and was holding up a cup saying "am I holding up a cup?" the atheists were saying "oh it's all subjective, it might not be a cup it might be a bunch of molecules that resemble a cup" or something ... and everyone in the room was just like WHAT THE HELL?! Professing themselves to be wise they became fools! Hehe :P
Bardock772 1 year ago 5
@Bardock772
Wow !
GoodGuy4life199 1 year ago