alBHAGDADI:


Yesterday, I came across a thread which shows Daddy Freeze attacking Pastor Kumuyi over his statement that women who wear men's wears are an abomination unto God. Such is found in the Bible...

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the L ORD thy God.

Reacting to the biblical sound doctrine, Daddy Freeze stated that Pastor Kumuyi is wrong because the old law has been done away by Jesus Christ who died on the cross. I ask, did Jesus die so that men can now wear makeup and skirts with brassieres like cross-dressers? Jesus didn't she'd his blood for you to disobey his commandments, neither has God stopped seeing abomination as abomination. That's a whole another sermon anyway.

Daddy Freeze further stated that if Pastor Kumuyi must obey the verse against cross-dressing, then he must also tell people to obey the verse that says ''women should marry their rapist".

My head sparked when I saw the statement from him which he even buttressed with a birthday verse seen below.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 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.


An untrained Bible student will believe him and the verse above, but we that know that Satan has his own Bibles littered everywhere will not be fooled by the idea behind the above verse. The verse is clearly saying that our God who is merciful and a righteous judge will punish a lady by forcing her to marry the wicked human who raped her and took away her virginity.

First and foremost, let's remember that Satan boasted that he will be like the Most High God. Should we be surprised when we hear that he has created his own Bible too? It is from that Bible that Daddy Freeze quoted from which is the NIV. Not only is the NIV Satan's book, but also all these other new and modern versions which distort the word of God. The only true word of God out there today is the King James Version KJV, and that's where I will be waiting from to show you that God never supports rape.

You see, that law in Deutoronomy is still the same law seen in Exodus. Let's see how the NIV puts it down in Exodus.


Exodus 22:16-17 New International Version (NIV)
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Compare it with how they put it down in Deutoronomy.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 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.

As seen above, they are the same laws because they speak of a virgin, not betrothed, bride price etc. But in their intentional mistake, they put rape in one and seduce in another. Let's see how the King James puts it.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Some might quickly think the phrase 'lay hold on her' means rape. No it doesn't. Laying hold on a woman is part of the process of sex. When you have sex with your wife, don't you lay hold on her? Or are you going to be doing it from a distance with Bluetooth? As if the Bible knew some folks will get it twisted, God repeated the same law in Exodus to show he doesn't mean rape but consensual sex. That's why in Exodus it says "if a man entice". Even the NIV uses the word seduce. Isn't it pretty clearly that the sex was consensual? The lady fell for the seduction which means she wasn't forced. How NIV and all these modern versions decided to use the word rape in another verse where the law was repeated is what baffles me. It is clearly to confuse people and make them think God was cruel in the old testament.

God never supported rape. He even ordered for rapists to be killed and the victim spared.

Deuteronomy 22:25-26 King James Version (KJV)
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

The NIV says the same thing.

Deuteronomy 22:25-26 New International Version (NIV)
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor,

So, how come the NIV said the victim must marry her rapist in another verse? Isn't it confusing? This is clearly a mistranslation done by Satan so that his agents can attack the word of God and Christians.


When the Bible says a man lay hold onto a woman and laid with her, it doesn't mean rape but consensual sex. The same Bible clearly spelt out what rape is when it said the rapist should be stoned if the woman cries out. But if shoe doesn't, then it means they both consented to it.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 King James Version (KJV)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
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.


Now, where in the below verse does it say that a father should collect bride price after his daughter has cried out of rape?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

As seen above, the man marries the girl because it was consensual sex which she fell for after his seductive games. But below is pure rape because he forced her, that's why he's ordered to be killed and the lady is not ordered to marry him.


Deuteronomy 22:25-26 King James Version (KJV)
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

This is why you need to stick with the King James Version only. Other versions have been perverted by Satan who has been attacking the word of God right from the Garden of Eden. He has not changed today.


Read link below to see more lies from all these modern Bible versions.


https://www.nairaland.com/4957299/bible-sword-butter-knife-why

cc lalasticlala

triplechoice:



You do not understand what it means to rape someone. The use of physical force is not the only means.

If you entice and coerce a victim, especially a minor, and succeed in having your way, it is rape

The idiom - - - lay hold of--- does not mean touching lightly or any kind of pre-intimacy as you tried to explain.. It means to grab someone or something suddenly and forcefully. To act in such a manner towards your wife each time you want to have sex throws consent away. In certain climes your wife can sue you for rape

However, if we understand that the Bible was written for a group of people during a particular period in the past, then we can find no problem with the command to marry a rape victim. At that time, if a woman is not a virgin she is ostracized and nobody marries her. So to protect victims of rape from such treatment it was the correct thing to force the perpetrator to marry the victim. It is a cultural thing and nothing to do with God

alBHAGDADI:


Stop trying to be clever, it makes you sound confusing and dubious.

Since when did the words entice and coerce become synonymous that you are attributing entice to mean rape? No dictionary gives the idiom lay hold to mean suddenly or forcefully for one to conclude that it means rape

Look below to see another place where the Bible made use of the idiom Lay Hold. Does it mean I'm raping eternal life when Paul said I should lay hold on to eternal life?

1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.


The Bible was not written for a particular people of a particular period. Stop injecting your own ideology into the Bible, thereby speaking what the Bible never said. For your information, the Bible was mainly written for we the people of today who are in the end time period.

Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

This means that if we christians see rape as bad and that a victim should not marry the rapist, then it means that that's how God has always viewed it right from the old testament because he changeth not.

Malachi 3:6 (KJV)
For I am the L ORD , I change not;


You even act ridiculous when you say God ordered for a victim to marry her rapist. Didn't you see the verse in the OP which states that a rapist should be killed and the victim freed? But here you are saying that God said a rapist should live and even be rewarded with his victim. That means if I see a beautiful girl way beyond my league, the best way to get her is to rape and be rewarded with her as my wife. Junk judgment which can only come from man, not God.

I still insist that you do not fully understand what rape means or how it is carried out.

If an adult enticed or coerced a minor to have sex, it is seen as statutory rape. At that age the victim is not matured enough to give valid consent. This means that even if the victim agrees it is still regarded as rape. That is the position of the law

Also, in certain circumstances it does not matter if the victim is an adult. If she is boxed into a corner and she as no option but to accede to the enticement or coercion it is still rape. Some individuals in position of authority are guilty of this. Either through promise of promotion or threat of sack

As for you not understanding what - - lay hold of-means in the different context, well the fault is yours and not mine. Except you are trying to be evasive, I do not want to believe that you destitute of the idea of context meaning

It is not my ideology that the Bible was written for a particular period. Every evidence points to the fact that it was so. However, that is not to say it does not contain things which are timeless

Finally, I never mentioned that God ordered anything. I said it was a cultural thing and nothing to do with God

triplechoice:


still insist that you do not fully understand what rape means or how it is carried out.
If an adult enticed or coerced a minor to have sex, it is seen as statutory rape. At that age the victim is not matured enough to give valid consent. This means that even if the victim agrees it is still regarded as rape. That is the position of the law
Also, in certain circumstances it does not matter if the victim is an adult. If she is boxed into a corner and she as no option but to accede to the enticement or coercion it is still rape. Some individuals in position of authority are guilty of this. Either through promise of promotion or threat of sack
As for you not understanding what - - lay hold of-means in the different context, well the fault is yours and not mine. Except you are trying to be evasive, I do not want to believe that you destitute of the idea of context meaning
It is not my ideology that the Bible was written for a particular period. Every evidence points to the fact that it was so. However, that is not to say it does not contain things which are timeless
Finally, I never mentioned that God ordered anything. I said it was a cultural thing and nothing to do with God

alBHAGDADI:


Yesterday, I came across a thread which shows Daddy Freeze attacking Pastor Kumuyi over his statement that women who wear men's wears are an abomination unto God. Such is found in the Bible...

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the L ORD thy God.

Reacting to the biblical sound doctrine, Daddy Freeze stated that Pastor Kumuyi is wrong because the old law has been done away by Jesus Christ who died on the cross. I ask, did Jesus die so that men can now wear makeup and skirts with brassieres like cross-dressers? Jesus didn't she'd his blood for you to disobey his commandments, neither has God stopped seeing abomination as abomination. That's a whole another sermon anyway.

Daddy Freeze further stated that if Pastor Kumuyi must obey the verse against cross-dressing, then he must also tell people to obey the verse that says ''women should marry their rapist".

My head sparked when I saw the statement from him which he even buttressed with a birthday verse seen below.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 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.


An untrained Bible student will believe him and the verse above, but we that know that Satan has his own Bibles littered everywhere will not be fooled by the idea behind the above verse. The verse is clearly saying that our God who is merciful and a righteous judge will punish a lady by forcing her to marry the wicked human who raped her and took away her virginity.

First and foremost, let's remember that Satan boasted that he will be like the Most High God. Should we be surprised when we hear that he has created his own Bible too? It is from that Bible that Daddy Freeze quoted from which is the NIV. Not only is the NIV Satan's book, but also all these other new and modern versions which distort the word of God. The only true word of God out there today is the King James Version KJV, and that's where I will be waiting from to show you that God never supports rape.

You see, that law in Deutoronomy is still the same law seen in Exodus. Let's see how the NIV puts it down in Exodus.


Exodus 22:16-17 New International Version (NIV)
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Compare it with how they put it down in Deutoronomy.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 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.

As seen above, they are the same laws because they speak of a virgin, not betrothed, bride price etc. But in their intentional mistake, they put rape in one and seduce in another. Let's see how the King James puts it.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Some might quickly think the phrase 'lay hold on her' means rape. No it doesn't. Laying hold on a woman is part of the process of sex. When you have sex with your wife, don't you lay hold on her? Or are you going to be doing it from a distance with Bluetooth? As if the Bible knew some folks will get it twisted, God repeated the same law in Exodus to show he doesn't mean rape but consensual sex. That's why in Exodus it says "if a man entice". Even the NIV uses the word seduce. Isn't it pretty clearly that the sex was consensual? The lady fell for the seduction which means she wasn't forced. How NIV and all these modern versions decided to use the word rape in another verse where the law was repeated is what baffles me. It is clearly to confuse people and make them think God was cruel in the old testament.

God never supported rape. He even ordered for rapists to be killed and the victim spared.

Deuteronomy 22:25-26 King James Version (KJV)
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

The NIV says the same thing.

Deuteronomy 22:25-26 New International Version (NIV)
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor,

So, how come the NIV said the victim must marry her rapist in another verse? Isn't it confusing? This is clearly a mistranslation done by Satan so that his agents can attack the word of God and Christians.


When the Bible says a man lay hold onto a woman and laid with her, it doesn't mean rape but consensual sex. The same Bible clearly spelt out what rape is when it said the rapist should be stoned if the woman cries out. But if shoe doesn't, then it means they both consented to it.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 King James Version (KJV)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
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.


Now, where in the below verse does it say that a father should collect bride price after his daughter has cried out of rape?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

As seen above, the man marries the girl because it was consensual sex which she fell for after his seductive games. But below is pure rape because he forced her, that's why he's ordered to be killed and the lady is not ordered to marry him.


Deuteronomy 22:25-26 King James Version (KJV)
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

This is why you need to stick with the King James Version only. Other versions have been perverted by Satan who has been attacking the word of God right from the Garden of Eden. He has not changed today.


Read link below to see more lies from all these modern Bible versions.


https://www.nairaland.com/4957299/bible-sword-butter-knife-why

cc lalasticlala

Ihedinobi3:

I agree that the Bible does not teach that according to the Mosaic Law a raped woman must marry her rapist. It clearly teaches rather that the rapist is the one who is forced to marry the woman and treat her honorably, never divorcing her as long as he lives.

But I strongly disagree on two things here:

1. That the NIV is substantively different from the KJV here. In Early Modern English (the language in which the KJV was translated), "lay hold on" almost always implies force in a violent context. The exceptions would imply determination in the absence of violence.

Also there are four different situations here:

i. Man rapes unbetrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

ii. Man seduces unbetrothed virgin (Exodus 22:16-17)

iii. Man rapes betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

iv. Man seduces betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

In (iii) and (iv), the man is killed because this is really adultery. In (iv), the woman is killed too because she consented despite being betrothed to another man. That is adultery.

In (i) and (ii), the woman is a free agent, so the rules are different. If it is rape, as in (i), the man is forced to marry her because he has insulted the woman and made it hard for her to find a husband (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21). If she were to marry someone else, she would be risking her life because the evidence of her virginity would be lacking on the marriage night. Note also that he cannot divorce her anymore. This law was made to protect women and guarantee marriage for them if anyone violated them. Compare 2 Samuel 13:1-22, especially verse 16. Then, as now, virginity was a great pride for the woman.

If it is seduction, as in (ii), the man must pay her dowry, also to make clear that another man has already had her. Because there was mutual consent here, the woman may not be compensated with an actual marriage: it is up to her father to decide whether to accept the rapist as his son-in-law or not. But the dowry is paid for her protection still, and the seducer has no choice but to marry her, if her father consents to the marriage. Any other man who marries her would know that she was taken by another man before him. He would also know that it was consensual. So, he would be getting into the marriage fully aware of her past history, and therefore unable to do her any further harm because of it (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21 again).

Both translations can be different, but not so much that one would consider them different Bibles. Neither is a perfect translation either - although both are among the very best translations available - so it is wise to compare them to each other as one studies.

2. That the Mosaic Law is still in force. Nearly all of Paul's letters addressed this. Romans, Galatians, the two letters to the Corinthians (especially in their address of circumcision), Colossians and especially Hebrews were devoted to teaching vigorously that the Law is no longer in force in the Church Age. This is made more emphatic by both the total absence of the Temple in Jerusalem throughout the period of the Church Age as well as the non-existence of the priesthood in Israel. There can be no more emphatic a way to show the removal of the Law than these witnesses.

The New Testament is chock-full of its own laws that we are responsible to adhere to, not least that there should be no sexual immorality, and everyone who lacks the gift of celibacy should have their own spouse and be faithful to them. In the New Testament, the hopes and expectations of the Old Testament are brought to fruition. It is not only foolishness, but also blasphemy against the Cross of Jesus Christ to return to the Mosaic Law in any form (Galatians 5:2; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26). We study that Law now in order to more completely understand the New Testament, because in that Law the New Testament is found in shadows.

alBHAGDADI:


Don't you see the error in your understanding of the law? According to your understanding, what God is saying is that once a riffraff or a loser sees a beautiful girl or the daughter of an highly placed man, who is way above his league and not within his reach for marriage be because he lacks the means, what he simply has to do is to find a way to rape her and she will become his.

That simply means that God is not only promoting the evil of rape but also encouraging lazy guys not to work hard to have enough to marry a beautiful girl because they have the option of making her theirs by raping her. According to your a rapist forced to marry his victim is a punishment to him, but you failed to consider when the rapists actual and main intention is for the victim to be his wife and for him to become in-laws with her well to do family. Can you now see your flaws?

Your misunderstanding is due to you reading a wrong Bible version which wrongly translates the verse to mean rape. One thing you need to know about the book of Deutoronomy is that it is a copy of the laws in the book of Exodus which precedes it (See screenshot below). So, the key to understanding the law which you have misconstrued to mean rape is to look at where it was first written which is in Exodus 22:16-17 which shows it is consensual sex.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Look at the keywords in both passages: Damsel/maid/virgin .... not betrothed... pay dowry, father, wife.

I'm now surprised at how the verse means rape here and means consensual sex elsewhere.


As for the law being done away with, you guys don't know what Paul and the Apostles were talking about when they made statement as such. You think they mean the law has been garbaged and over. No. They simply mean it no longer served as a basis for salvation because Jesus is now the one who gives salvation. If the law was done away with, how come the new testament orders that we do many things found in the law? Below is Jesus repeating what he said in the old testament.

Matthew 5:44 (KJV)
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Exodus 23:4
If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

They are both talking about loving one's enemies. This clearly shows that the part of the old law which God wants us to continue with, he clearly states in the new testament. The ones he doesn't want us to do again, he also stated.

Now, what happens to the ones he didn't say anything about in the new testament? It means they remain valid and must be obeyed. Whatever he said back then remains until we hear otherwise from him. Changing those things is the same as ordering people to go against them when the Bible hasn't ordered such. Changing them is the same as speaking when God hasn't spoken. The above is a clear way to know which laws are to be obey and which are not to be obeyed.

You see, when the Bible is speaking about the law being done away with, it is not saying you can now disobey those laws especially the ones that have to do with serving false gods, tattoos, cross-dressing, homosexuality etc. The Bible simply means the law is no longer a prerequisite to eternal salvation. Jesus has saved us by his grace, so we no longer need to fulfill the law to be saved. We only obey the law to show obedience to God here on Earth else we get punished, but not as a ticket to heaven. The law no longer fulfills that purpose.

There isn't much new that Jesus said in the new testament that he hadn't already said in the old testament. The same Jesus who said love your neighbor as yourself is the same Jesus who said it first in the old testament.

Leviticus 19:18 (KJV)
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the L ORD .

Matthew 22:39 (KJV)
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

If you feel, the old testament laws are done away with then go and sleep with your mother as against the law in Leviticus. Also, wear female clothes as a man which is something God said is an abomination to Him. One thing you need to know is that the laws which God doesn't want us to obey anymore, he clearly changed in the new testament e.g animal sacrifices, unclean animals, washing, not shaving, not wearing clothes with mixed materials etc. All those are carnal ordinances

Hebrews 9:10
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

But laws such as against homosexuality, incest, idolatory, cross-dressing, and also laws on tithing etc still stand. Yes, God repeated himself on some of these issued, but the fact that he didn't say anything concerning some in the new testament doesn't mean we can now disobey them. He doesn't always have to repeat himself. He has spoken already in the old testament and whatever he said back then remains valid until we hear otherwise. Or did you hear him say in the new testament that we can now cross-dress and sleep with our sister and mother?

Jesus made it clear that the law has been summed up into loving God and our neighbor. But can you love God and your neighbor without obeying God's commandments? Be sincere.

Matthew 22:36-40 King James Version (KJV)
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

How do we love God? We do by obeying his commandments.

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Shepherd00:

Do you know how long one's post will be if one were to respond fully to your very long post? Pls keep it short

I will say only one thing based on your first Paragraph.

What do you think made Simeon and Levi the sons of Jacob and the Senior brothers of Diana kill Shechem with his entire clan and community? exactly what you just asked.

alBHAGDADI:


Shechem didn't rape Dinah, we can conclude that it was consensual because the Buble never said anything like force or rape. Simeone and Levi killed him simply because he defiled her, which means he slept with her when she wasn't married to him, a thing that would make Dinah find it difficult to find a husband cos no man then would isn't to marry a non-virgin. Shechem even did right by begging g for her hand in marriage all because he loved her, which is according to the law of God. But Simeone and Levi did wrong by killing him and his clan.

Shepherd00:

See? Read what you yourself typed.

1) How can Dinah who knew first, that her clan does not marry with the Canaanite allow consensual sex with Shechem?

2) Secondly, how can she knowing too well that if she had sex before marriage she will be an anathema after that consent to sex?

And, Al, Dinah was raped. Even your tone says it. Read your post again.

Shechem knew that if a virgin is disvirgined another man won't touch her, yet he did. It was afterwards he changed his mind and wanted to marry her.

MuttleyLaff:
triplechoice dont waste your breath with alBHAGDADI and Ihedinobi3, that is well constructed and truthful post

About alBHAGDADI saying Daddy Freeze attacked Pastor Kumuyi over his statement that women who wear men's wears are an abomination unto God and saying that such is found in the Bible, before then quoting Deuteronomy 22:5, I have already on a different thread, asked him to please and kindly in a way that a two year old can understand, that's if at all if he really does know, soon explain to us, the reason behind why, in the Bible, God said cross dressing is an abomination to Him and that women should abstain from wearing what belongs to men, likewise men what belongs to women, but this request seems to be hard and difficult for him to give answers to?

triplechoice:


I have already decided to discontiue the aguement. It is obvious the op is seeing things from a different position than mine. I cannot force him to see things from my point of view

alBHAGDADI:


Your first question makes you sound like you don't know how girls do stupid things for the sake of love especially when the man in question is a prince. Your second question also deserves the same answer as the first.

My tone doesn't connote rape. I simply said she was defiled to which I gave the meaning.

The Bible never said Shechem changed his mind and wanted to marry her. He was on love with her as clearly written in the Bible. He didn't suddenly develop love for her after raping her. No rapist does that. This means they were dating.

Notice that no one knew they had had sex until he walked up to Jacob asking her hand in marriage. It was during the process of asking for her hand in marriage that Jacob learn that he had had sex with her. So clearly, what we can draw from the whole thing is that he saw her, fell in love with her, dated her, had sex with her then saw that it was best he wife her. Jacob and his children we're only pissed that he had sex with her before marital talks.

Shepherd00:

Speculations. Dinah dated Shechem? lolzzzzz. She knew that she was a Hebrew, she knew the kind of brothers she had. She dated Shechem?
Even the King James you believe says Shechem took her. It didn't say she went with him.

Contemporary English Version (US Version) Genesis 34:1-4

Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, went to visit some of the women who lived nearby.

She was seen by Hamor's son Shechem, the leader of the Hivites, and he grabbed her and raped her.

But Shechem was attracted to Dinah, so he told her how much he loved her.

Shechem even asked his father to arrange for him to marry her.

KJV Genesis 34:1-2

And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

NIV
Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land.

34:2When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and violated her

.34:3His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her

alBHAGDADI:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 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.


An untrained Bible student will believe him and the verse above, but we that know that Satan has his own Bibles littered everywhere will not be fooled by the idea behind the above verse. The verse is clearly saying that our God who is merciful and a righteous judge will punish a lady by forcing her to marry the wicked human who raped her and took away her virginity.

alBHAGDADI:


Don't you see the error in your understanding of the law? According to your understanding, what God is saying is that once a riffraff or a loser sees a beautiful girl or the daughter of an highly placed man, who is way above his league and not within his reach for marriage be because he lacks the means, what he simply has to do is to find a way to rape her and she will become his.

That simply means that God is not only promoting the evil of rape but also encouraging lazy guys not to work hard to have enough to marry a beautiful girl because they have the option of making her theirs by raping her. According to your a rapist forced to marry his victim is a punishment to him, but you failed to consider when the rapists actual and main intention is for the victim to be his wife and for him to become in-laws with her well to do family. Can you now see your flaws?

Your misunderstanding is due to you reading a wrong Bible version which wrongly translates the verse to mean rape. One thing you need to know about the book of Deutoronomy is that it is a copy of the laws in the book of Exodus which precedes it (See screenshot below). So, the key to understanding the law which you have misconstrued to mean rape is to look at where it was first written which is in Exodus 22:16-17 which shows it is consensual sex.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Look at the keywords in both passages: Damsel/maid/virgin .... not betrothed... pay dowry, father, wife.

I'm now surprised at how the verse means rape here and means consensual sex elsewhere.


As for the law being done away with, you guys don't know what Paul and the Apostles were talking about when they made statement as such. You think they mean the law has been garbaged and over. No. They simply mean it no longer served as a basis for salvation because Jesus is now the one who gives salvation. If the law was done away with, how come the new testament orders that we do many things found in the law? Below is Jesus repeating what he said in the old testament.

Matthew 5:44 (KJV)
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Exodus 23:4
If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

They are both talking about loving one's enemies. This clearly shows that the part of the old law which God wants us to continue with, he clearly states in the new testament. The ones he doesn't want us to do again, he also stated.

Now, what happens to the ones he didn't say anything about in the new testament? It means they remain valid and must be obeyed. Whatever he said back then remains until we hear otherwise from him. Changing those things is the same as ordering people to go against them when the Bible hasn't ordered such. Changing them is the same as speaking when God hasn't spoken. The above is a clear way to know which laws are to be obey and which are not to be obeyed.

You see, when the Bible is speaking about the law being done away with, it is not saying you can now disobey those laws especially the ones that have to do with serving false gods, tattoos, cross-dressing, homosexuality etc. The Bible simply means the law is no longer a prerequisite to eternal salvation. Jesus has saved us by his grace, so we no longer need to fulfill the law to be saved. We only obey the law to show obedience to God here on Earth else we get punished, but not as a ticket to heaven. The law no longer fulfills that purpose.

There isn't much new that Jesus said in the new testament that he hadn't already said in the old testament. The same Jesus who said love your neighbor as yourself is the same Jesus who said it first in the old testament.

Leviticus 19:18 (KJV)
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the L ORD .

Matthew 22:39 (KJV)
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

If you feel, the old testament laws are done away with then go and sleep with your mother as against the law in Leviticus. Also, wear female clothes as a man which is something God said is an abomination to Him. One thing you need to know is that the laws which God doesn't want us to obey anymore, he clearly changed in the new testament e.g animal sacrifices, unclean animals, washing, not shaving, not wearing clothes with mixed materials etc. All those are carnal ordinances

Hebrews 9:10
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

But laws such as against homosexuality, incest, idolatory, cross-dressing, and also laws on tithing etc still stand. Yes, God repeated himself on some of these issued, but the fact that he didn't say anything concerning some in the new testament doesn't mean we can now disobey them. He doesn't always have to repeat himself. He has spoken already in the old testament and whatever he said back then remains valid until we hear otherwise. Or did you hear him say in the new testament that we can now cross-dress and sleep with our sister and mother?

Jesus made it clear that the law has been summed up into loving God and our neighbor. But can you love God and your neighbor without obeying God's commandments? Be sincere.

Matthew 22:36-40 King James Version (KJV)
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

How do we love God? We do by obeying his commandments.

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

alBHAGDADI:


The OP clearly stated that all these modern Bible versions are false and a distortion of God's word. Yet you wrote from them to buttress what they've deceived you with.

Ihedinobi3:

I agree that the Bible does not teach that according to the Mosaic Law a raped woman must marry her rapist. It clearly teaches rather that the rapist is the one who is forced to marry the woman and treat her honorably, never divorcing her as long as he lives.

But I strongly disagree on two things here:

1. That the NIV is substantively different from the KJV here. In Early Modern English (the language in which the KJV was translated), "lay hold on" almost always implies force in a violent context. The exceptions would imply determination in the absence of violence.

Also there are four different situations here:

i. Man rapes unbetrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

ii. Man seduces unbetrothed virgin (Exodus 22:16-17)

iii. Man rapes betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

iv. Man seduces betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

In (iii) and (iv), the man is killed because this is really adultery. In (iv), the woman is killed too because she consented despite being betrothed to another man. That is adultery.

In (i) and (ii), the woman is a free agent, so the rules are different. If it is rape, as in (i), the man is forced to marry her because he has insulted the woman and made it hard for her to find a husband (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21). If she were to marry someone else, she would be risking her life because the evidence of her virginity would be lacking on the marriage night. Note also that he cannot divorce her anymore. This law was made to protect women and guarantee marriage for them if anyone violated them. Compare 2 Samuel 13:1-22, especially verse 16. Then, as now, virginity was a great pride for the woman.

If it is seduction, as in (ii), the man must pay her dowry, also to make clear that another man has already had her. Because there was mutual consent here, the woman may not be compensated with an actual marriage: it is up to her father to decide whether to accept the rapist as his son-in-law or not. But the dowry is paid for her protection still, and the seducer has no choice but to marry her, if her father consents to the marriage. Any other man who marries her would know that she was taken by another man before him. He would also know that it was consensual. So, he would be getting into the marriage fully aware of her past history, and therefore unable to do her any further harm because of it (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21 again).

Both translations can be different, but not so much that one would consider them different Bibles. Neither is a perfect translation either - although both are among the very best translations available - so it is wise to compare them to each other as one studies.

2. That the Mosaic Law is still in force. Nearly all of Paul's letters addressed this. Romans, Galatians, the two letters to the Corinthians (especially in their address of circumcision), Colossians and especially Hebrews were devoted to teaching vigorously that the Law is no longer in force in the Church Age. This is made more emphatic by both the total absence of the Temple in Jerusalem throughout the period of the Church Age as well as the non-existence of the priesthood in Israel. There can be no more emphatic a way to show the removal of the Law than these witnesses.

The New Testament is chock-full of its own laws that we are responsible to adhere to, not least that there should be no sexual immorality, and everyone who lacks the gift of celibacy should have their own spouse and be faithful to them. In the New Testament, the hopes and expectations of the Old Testament are brought to fruition. It is not only foolishness, but also blasphemy against the Cross of Jesus Christ to return to the Mosaic Law in any form (Galatians 5:2; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26). We study that Law now in order to more completely understand the New Testament, because in that Law the New Testament is found in shadows.

Shepherd00:

Oh Wow. Really? I am an Evangelical. I got born again reading only King James. One day I read a verse which got me confused as to why it will be that way, forever reason, undecided to read that same verse in another translation, it was clear that I missed understood what King James said. It was the same thing but put differently. From then I read other versions too.

But if you believe that if not KJV is not a Bible, good then.

But, on the present case. Even KJV said 'Shechem took her and defiled her'. If there was consent, it won't be called defilement.

But, have it your way, what the Word says, remains what it says.

adelee777:


I am always happy when I see Christians with the knowledge of what Christianity is all about. People always confuse traditions with true Christianity. When I see somebody praising the KJV to high heavens I just smh on such ignorance. God bless you bro for this writeup.

Ihedinobi3:
I still disagree with you. I stand by what I said earlier.

alBHAGDADI:


Defile doesn't mean rape. It simply means she is no more pure as a virgin after she had sex with Shechem.

Kindly go back to the King James Version or else all these modern versions will just keep confusing you to the the point that you will start insulting God without knowing e.g you saying God one time supported rape.

adelee777:


I am always happy when I see Christians with the knowledge of what Christianity is all about. People always confuse traditions with true Christianity. When I see somebody praising the KJV to high heavens I just smh on such ignorance. God bless you bro for this writeup.

alBHAGDADI:


You should have pointed out what you disagree with in my post.

Ihedinobi3:

I already showed you my position. You only dismissed it and repeated your claims. I didn't have to restate my arguments.

alBHAGDADI:


Your position is not biblically sound but man made. What I simply did was use the Bible to expose its flaws. If my post had flaws, you would have done the same to the rebuttal.