Hmmm. Reading the scripture it seems to me to not even be about rape. But more like sex out of wedlock.
28 g“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. >
I could see that as an interpretation for sure. I’m not well versed enough in Hebrew to understand the original text and it’s context. But I think one could argue that “seize” here could be seen as persuing her romantically.
Now please don’t take this as me defending any of this. I’m just trying to show how many different ways this may be interpreted which leads to how people take the Bible out of context or to extremes.
You’re correct. But in Christianity premarital sex is seen as a sin and whether or not its consensual they would most likely still see it as a act of violating a woman.
Hmmm. Reading the scripture it seems to me to not even be about rape. But more like sex out of wedlock.
Well that’s worse. Imagine being raped and bought like cattle from your parents.
My point was that without more context it doesn’t seem to be speaking about rape. Just premarital sex. Not cool but still
I think the connection is coming from the word “seizes”, which sounds non-consensual.
I could see that as an interpretation for sure. I’m not well versed enough in Hebrew to understand the original text and it’s context. But I think one could argue that “seize” here could be seen as persuing her romantically.
Now please don’t take this as me defending any of this. I’m just trying to show how many different ways this may be interpreted which leads to how people take the Bible out of context or to extremes.
And that he violated her. Also doesn’t sound good.
You’re correct. But in Christianity premarital sex is seen as a sin and whether or not its consensual they would most likely still see it as a act of violating a woman.