The Instigator
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Bitch_Goddess
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 force a rape victim to marry her rapist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
80days03hours57minutes06seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 174 times Debate No: 104783
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Bitch_Goddess

Pro

I would first like to thank Con for the opportunity to debate this subject.

Now, moving on to my argument.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV): https://www.biblegateway.com...

I now make the claim that the KJV Bible is a more reliable source than that of the NIV. The character limit is only 1,000, so I provide a link that supports this claim instead of providing my own words.
Reasoning: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...

This being said, referencing back to verse 28, it states "and lay hold on her, and lie with her". This could refer to both consensual intercourse and rape. So the idea of a rape victim pertaining to the verse would make sense. Continuing on, it says "and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days". This makes a clear position that the woman is to marry the man and that they may not divorce until the day he dies.

I look forward to Con's next argument.
Debate Round No. 1
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Con

I have a few objections. Who says that the original autographs indicate rape in these Scriptures. Who says this translation or that translation is right or wrong? Why would Yahweh the loving God force a rape victim to marry her rapist? Don't you know that translations can be wrong. Study the original autographs and judge a translation based on facts and evidence. I enjoy the New Living Translation, and I suggest it to you. We have both provided citations, let the facts speak for themselves.
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

Con, the burden of proof is now dependent on you.
I cannot refute evidence you have not presented. Perhaps if you quote the original text, we'd have something to discuss.
However, until then, you have provided me with no evidence to refute my argument.

--"Who says this translation or that translation is right or wrong?"
You have not provided any evidence that presents otherwise.
--"Why would Yahweh the loving God force a rape victim to marry her rapist?"
I don't know. You tell me. The Bibe is supposedly based on the word of God.
--"Don't you know that translations can be wrong"
They CAN be. You are correct. However, no proof has been shown that the verses are otherwise, so my original argument remains.

"I enjoy the New Living Translation"
Do you have evidence to share that shows how the NIV is more reliable than the KJV? Whether or not you "enjoy" it is irrelevant.

I ask Con that if they'd like to have a reasonable debate, that they provide sound evidence to support their claims.
Debate Round No. 2
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Con

I have already proven my claims with a link, and asked valid questions which you refused to answer. To study the original languages with definitions, go to: https://www.blueletterbible.org...
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

Con did not post that link before. I suggest Con looks over the arguments again.
I'd also like to know which questions I did not address. I believe I answered, or at least addressed, every question asked of me. Please provide specific questions that I haven't addressed in your next argument so that I may address them.

http://www.scripture4all.org...

--The link you sent me explains the wording that goes most similarly with the KJV, not NIV. It also promotes the idea of both rape or consensual intercourse. Especially since the previous verse was about rape. You still have not explained to me how it doesn't indicate such.

What I ask of Con is this: provide an explanation of how the original text supports your claims. Provide your claims with evidence & reasoning that supports the idea that the verses are not telling a rape victim to marry her rapist.
Until Con can properly explain his/her claims with evidence supporting it, I have nothing further to say.
Debate Round No. 3
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Con

Pro has provided no evidence for his claims. I provided alink with an example of a translation that does not command rape victims to marry their rapists. Show me proof that the original Hebrew does this, and I will shut up. I believe in questioning everything, including the Bible in her many translations. WHY is your translation valid, and not mine? Prove your claims.
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

Have you not looked at the link I sent you as well?
How have I not provided evidence for my claims when they are so clearly on the screen in Rounds 1 and 3?
It (the link) explains how and why the KJV is more reliable than the NIV/NLT (which is your version). Your version completely omits verses and contradicts itself. Again, I ask you to actually look at the link.

"Prove your claims."
Proof of claims is the link.
You'd know that if you read it.

"I provided alink with an example of a translation that does not command rape victims to marry their rapists"
How does your verse not command it as well? You provided a link to the verse and the Hebrew text. That's it. You have not once in this entire debate explained how that verse does not force a rape victim to marry their rapist.

This debate will get nowhere if you rely on only links to do the arguing for you. Please use your words and explain the reasoning behind your claims. Not sending me links that just repeat the verse.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Con

You have no proof for your claims. I have proven my claims with a link. Not all translations forced rape victims to marry her rapist. You are not a Christian if you disrespect the Bible.
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

You're correct about one thing: I'm not a Christian.

You, however, have not answered any of the questions I gave you, as well as explained the verse thoroughly. Such as how your verse doesn't condone the rape victim to marry the rapist. I find it strange that you have not done so, but instead have continuously repeated yourself time and time again.

I have provided my evidence multiple times. You just refuse to accept it, with no regards to it whatsoever.

I would like to say good debate, but in all honesty, this felt as though it was one-sided.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 1 week ago
Bitch_Goddess
The verse never makes the indication that the wife could divorce the man. If that were the case, they wouldn't have to marry in the first place. It also never indicates that the man is ever even wanting to become a Christian.

And even so, this argument/debate is about whether or not it's forcing the victim to marry her rapist. In which it does indeed force her to. Regarding divorce, the only reason someone can divorce, according to the Bible at least, is if one of the two commits sexual immorality, such as adultery. Never does it say the woman can divorce the man just because. Even if it's detrimental to her mental health.
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery".

"And of course, assuming that the Rapist truly treats the woman with absolute love and kindess, then she should in turn forgive him. Because he is truly sorry for what he has done."
According to the Bible?
I couldn't care less if the rapist were to get down on his/her knees and beg for forgiveness. If they were so incredibly disgusting and disrespectful to violate someone's body against their will, they deserve nothing but jail time.
If you were raped by a man, would you be so forgiving if it seemed like they were sorry? Even though they violated you, possibly caused permanent damage to your mental health?
I'd be amazed if you could forgive them.

But of course, we will probably never know.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 week ago
Stonehe4rt
The Bible, Deuteronomy specifically assumes the best of people. You might not think that on the first read, but these laws are in place because they are assuming that everyone is going to be perfect. Now this verse is stating in the situation someone broke this law, firstly the rapist should have already been stoned to death assuming everyone around him is perfect. However that is never the case, so what should the rapist do? Because the Bible applies to everyone, even Hitler. It has redemption for anyone who ask for forgiveness. So what is the right thing for the rapist to do, assuming they truly want to become Christian and atone for their wrongdoing? Well dedicating their life to that woman. You see, by the way the verse is phrased, the rapist can never divorce the woman, however do to the lustful nature of rape itself, the woman has the right to "divorce" the rapist. And even if she leaves the rapist, he can never be with another woman. And that rapist is to love and respect the woman he harmed, assisting her in anyway he can for the rest of his life.

So in the case the woman never wants to see his face again, he would still have to live his life, never being with another woman until the day he dies.

But what happens in the case of a married woman who is raped? Well the bible is pretty clear on that subject. The rapist is sentenced to death.

So really, while this may seem like a woman is being trapped to her rapist, it is the other way around and the woman can end it at pretty much any time. In the old days this was extremely in the benefit of the woman, as they couldnt really survive without a man to take care of them. And of course, assuming that the Rapist truly treats the woman with absolute love and kindess, then she should in turn forgive him. Because he is truly sorry for what he has done. And to be Christian is to be Forgiving, Christ was constantly praying for those who were in the process of crucifying him. So yeah.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 1 week ago
Bitch_Goddess
But that's completely disregarding the fact that he violated her. She might have PTSD or just never want to see his face again because of his actions. Forcing them to marry would more than likely worsen her mental condition after that.
Posted by 12274021 1 week ago
12274021
i honestly think that it would be kind of a punishment period to marry her
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 week ago
Stonehe4rt
It is a yes no type of answer. You see, many of the laws in the Bible and Deuteronomy especially assume perfection. Meaning if a man raped a woman, but TRULY HONESTLY TO GOD wanted to be good and never do something wrong like that again. He would dedicate his life to her. Never divorce her, treat her with the highest amount of love possible ect...

Now if the rapist DOESNT want to dedicate his life in repentance and love towards the woman he had harmed, then a marriage cannot take place. Chances are he would just cheat on the woman and the marriage would be void. Infact when a man so much as lustfully stares at another woman, the Wife has full authority to divorce him.

Many of the laws in the Bible are seem controversial only because they are stating what would need to happen if the person wanted to do good and atone for what they had done. This is actually another area where we see just how merciful God is (assuming the said person wants God's mercy and tries to be a good person) it shows how ANYONE no matter how wicked can be saved and can be forgiven.

Even if it was Hitler, if he dedicated his life to helping those he had harmed, EVERYTHING he desired and owned, gave it all up to help those he wronged. Then yeah even Hitler could be forgiven I believe. (Sorry got a bit off topic)

The only reason I wouldn't choose Pro for this is as I said, it is a Yes-No answer. Because the woman has every right to "divorce" the rapist. That law does however Force the Rapist to never be with another woman, and to do whatever they can to make up their wrongdoings to the one they had harmed.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 week ago
FollowerofChrist1955
The conditions of the World through time, is consistent with history, and for this purpose was it annotated. Today there exist the notion of rights granted by God. Facts of scripture do not bear them true. God requires a decision from the masses, those who make the wrong one, willfully choose eternal separation from God. This matters because the soul is eternal and must exist somewhere .... only two places for them to exist .... heaven or Hell. Not going to one means GOING to the other.

To ponder on history, asking useless pointless questions about times long past, while Hell moves closer and closer to you? Is Like those people who refused to leave those houses in California, then were shocked they couldn"t escape! Just doesn"t make no kinda sense!
Posted by Swagnarok 1 week ago
Swagnarok
There was another passage in the Pentateuch that dealt with rape, and it does indeed say he must marry her; this was at a time whenever it would've been immensely difficult for a single woman to provide for herself, and at a time when the average man was unlikely to agree to marrying a woman who was raped. This was also at a time whenever it was very well universal for women to consider being mothers as their primary purpose in life (and a single woman couldn't become one without, you know, breaking other important OT prohibitions and regulations)
Posted by LightGenius 1 week ago
LightGenius
The passage doesn't say rape but rather intercourse which would mean it was consensual. in the verses before it use the word rape...
No votes have been placed for this debate.