4 ms·

Here’s the NIV version: 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 fi

Here’s the NIV version: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. The people who wrote the NIV know a lot more than me about translating texts and whatnot. Apparently the immutable Word of God is not so clear when competing experts disagree over the meaning of verses dealing with morality. I’ll bet everyone who uses Leviticus to condemn homosexuality isn’t as nuanced on the meaning of those verses as you are on this one. It is curious that you chose to write about the nuance on interpreting the verse in Deuteronomy but not the one in Leviticus. This undergirds my point about picking and choosing. Furthermore, when you write things like: Paternity can now be determined far more easily, so virginity is no longer as prized. Women can more easily within society "be cared for", either by themselves, or the state; so its not as important to force a marriage. Divorcing from this context is a misrepresentation of the original law and its intention. You implicitly suggest that God was unwilling or incapable of telling his people to change their ways to be more moral/correct. One of the underpinnings of most Christians’ beliefs is the idea of God’s immutability and His righteousness. Are you suggesting that what God once considered moral is no longer moral?

Chris2048 3y ago
> Apparently the immutable Word of God sure, but are you talking about the word of god, or the words in the bible. I was going off the KJB, as derived from Hebrew, so it would make more sense to look at the original Hebrew. I'm not sure why you pay more attention an translation produced by an American businessman in the 70s; The previous link I provided even discusses the issue of "ḥāzaq" vs "tāpas". The WP page for the NIV even details the various scholars taking issue with it, e.g.: > Mark Given, a professor of religious studies at Missouri State University, criticized the NIV for "several inaccurate and misleading translations" as many sentences and clauses are paraphrased, rather than translated from Hebrew and Greek. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version Here is something similar in NIV without the word rape: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A16&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A16&... see https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/dooq5l/the_niv_makes_an_serious_obvious_translation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/dooq5l/the_ni...
- synetic 3y ago
  Therein lies the rub. All translations have critics. All of them are wrong in some way according to some expert. Pick the one you like. Pick the translator you like. While you quote a professor who knows much more than me it doesn’t mean much since equally qualified experts were involved in writing the NIV and every other version. And they translated it differently than this professor would have. What we have is a bunch of experts disagreeing with each other. What I’m left with is one immutable fact: the Bible - whichever version you choose - is wrong according to some expert who is a Christian.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    Here's the rub-a-dub: whatever criteria you use to determine someone an "expert", they can't add any more information than their source material. AFAIK a lot of later bible are based on KJB - How can anyone, expert or otherwise, add information to the KJB (bar consulting Hebrew)? > equally qualified experts were involved in writing the NIV.. Then why are you dedicated to one particular translation if you think there is such ambiguity?
    - synetic 3y ago
      I don’t care about the Bible. I’m not particular about any versions of it. I picked NIV because its translation was different than the one you liked. I was making a point. I think you must be deliberately missing it. 1. Experts were involved in making NIV. Those experts were Christians. 2. You have a Christian expert who doesn’t like their translation. Put those two facts together and you have, necessarily, ambiguity. It’s not that I think there is ambiguity on what constitutes what scripture says it’s that there is ambiguity. I’m not even talking about different interpretations of what the collection of words mean. There’s ambiguity in what the words actually are. Then there’s the fact that the Catholic Bible is different than the Protestant one which is different than the Coptic Christian Bible which is different than….etc. Your knowledge of the history of the inspiration and canonicity of the Bible is quite poor. If you were to be real honest with yourself you will realize that the reason you like one expert over another is because their belief about the proper translation is more palatable to you. This is an example of picking and choosing what to believe when it comes to religion. Which is what I said in the original post I made.
Chris2048 3y ago
> It is curious that you chose to write about the nuance on interpreting the verse in Deuteronomy but not the one in Leviticus. This undergirds my point about picking and choosing. Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate to "You wrote about one nuance of the bible, but not another", am I somehow beholden to comment on everything all at once? But here's the point: The comparison is apples and oranges. Even the phrasing of the NIV "He can never divorce her as long as he lives" implies it is intended as a burden on him, so it appears to me that your interpretation is wrong. There is no reasoning behind the "homosexuality" line, nor much else in the bible about that subject, so what more can I say? > One of the underpinnings of most Christians’ beliefs is the idea of God’s immutability and His righteousness. Does that include the words of the bible being the literal word of god? This is provably false wrt the KJB and derivatives, so any such Christians would undoubtedly be referring to the original Hebrew. Not sure that's "most Christians", in the US anyway. > You implicitly suggest that God was unwilling or incapable of telling his people to change their ways Unless he send some kind of official messenger with an updated set of rules ;-) > Are you suggesting that what God once considered moral is no longer moral? perhaps what once was immoral had unstated conditions that no longer became relevant e.g. the very context I suggest.
- synetic 3y ago
  Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate… My perspective is perhaps clouded by the fact that there are, in my view, two equally morally repugnant verses that were referenced. That you chose to comment on the one and not the other was suggestive to me. I don’t know you so I can’t possibly know what you really believe. I have to get clues by what is said and unsaid. I suspect, but don’t know, that Biblical condemnation of homosexuality isn’t as worthwhile to rationalize away to you as it is to defend the Bible indicating that female virgins who are “raped” must marry their “rapist”. …perhaps what once was immoral had unstated conditions that no longer became relevant e.g. the very context I suggest. My morality is so screwed up and deranged that I don’t think there is ever a circumstance in which it is moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist. I’m an atheist so this probably explains why I can’t understand the reason for putting this verse in the Bible to begin with. Let me be specific and somewhat mocking. At one point in time God thought it was moral to force some rape victims to marry their rapist but no longer thinks this is the case. Somewhere along the line, around the time of widespread government support services in some countries, He decided it’s no longer ok. God sounds incompetent. Personally, I would have written something like, Society must care for rape victims for as long as they live. And not force them to marry their rapist or to be viewed as damaged goods or in any other sort of asinine way. This is the gist of what I’d have written. Don’t nitpick it though since this is much better than what the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe could come up with.

Chris2048 3y ago

> Apparently the immutable Word of God sure, but are you talking about the word of god, or the words in the bible. I was going off the KJB, as derived from Hebrew, so it would make more sense to look at the original Hebrew. I'm not sure why you pay more attention an translation produced by an American businessman in the 70s; The previous link I provided even discusses the issue of "ḥāzaq" vs "tāpas". The WP page for the NIV even details the various scholars taking issue with it, e.g.: > Mark Given, a professor of religious studies at Missouri State University, criticized the NIV for "several inaccurate and misleading translations" as many sentences and clauses are paraphrased, rather than translated from Hebrew and Greek. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version Here is something similar in NIV without the word rape: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A16&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A16&... see https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/dooq5l/the_niv_makes_an_serious_obvious_translation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/dooq5l/the_ni...

synetic 3y ago
Therein lies the rub. All translations have critics. All of them are wrong in some way according to some expert. Pick the one you like. Pick the translator you like. While you quote a professor who knows much more than me it doesn’t mean much since equally qualified experts were involved in writing the NIV and every other version. And they translated it differently than this professor would have. What we have is a bunch of experts disagreeing with each other. What I’m left with is one immutable fact: the Bible - whichever version you choose - is wrong according to some expert who is a Christian.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  Here's the rub-a-dub: whatever criteria you use to determine someone an "expert", they can't add any more information than their source material. AFAIK a lot of later bible are based on KJB - How can anyone, expert or otherwise, add information to the KJB (bar consulting Hebrew)? > equally qualified experts were involved in writing the NIV.. Then why are you dedicated to one particular translation if you think there is such ambiguity?
  - synetic 3y ago
    I don’t care about the Bible. I’m not particular about any versions of it. I picked NIV because its translation was different than the one you liked. I was making a point. I think you must be deliberately missing it. 1. Experts were involved in making NIV. Those experts were Christians. 2. You have a Christian expert who doesn’t like their translation. Put those two facts together and you have, necessarily, ambiguity. It’s not that I think there is ambiguity on what constitutes what scripture says it’s that there is ambiguity. I’m not even talking about different interpretations of what the collection of words mean. There’s ambiguity in what the words actually are. Then there’s the fact that the Catholic Bible is different than the Protestant one which is different than the Coptic Christian Bible which is different than….etc. Your knowledge of the history of the inspiration and canonicity of the Bible is quite poor. If you were to be real honest with yourself you will realize that the reason you like one expert over another is because their belief about the proper translation is more palatable to you. This is an example of picking and choosing what to believe when it comes to religion. Which is what I said in the original post I made.

Chris2048 3y ago

> It is curious that you chose to write about the nuance on interpreting the verse in Deuteronomy but not the one in Leviticus. This undergirds my point about picking and choosing. Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate to "You wrote about one nuance of the bible, but not another", am I somehow beholden to comment on everything all at once? But here's the point: The comparison is apples and oranges. Even the phrasing of the NIV "He can never divorce her as long as he lives" implies it is intended as a burden on him, so it appears to me that your interpretation is wrong. There is no reasoning behind the "homosexuality" line, nor much else in the bible about that subject, so what more can I say? > One of the underpinnings of most Christians’ beliefs is the idea of God’s immutability and His righteousness. Does that include the words of the bible being the literal word of god? This is provably false wrt the KJB and derivatives, so any such Christians would undoubtedly be referring to the original Hebrew. Not sure that's "most Christians", in the US anyway. > You implicitly suggest that God was unwilling or incapable of telling his people to change their ways Unless he send some kind of official messenger with an updated set of rules ;-) > Are you suggesting that what God once considered moral is no longer moral? perhaps what once was immoral had unstated conditions that no longer became relevant e.g. the very context I suggest.

synetic 3y ago
Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate… My perspective is perhaps clouded by the fact that there are, in my view, two equally morally repugnant verses that were referenced. That you chose to comment on the one and not the other was suggestive to me. I don’t know you so I can’t possibly know what you really believe. I have to get clues by what is said and unsaid. I suspect, but don’t know, that Biblical condemnation of homosexuality isn’t as worthwhile to rationalize away to you as it is to defend the Bible indicating that female virgins who are “raped” must marry their “rapist”. …perhaps what once was immoral had unstated conditions that no longer became relevant e.g. the very context I suggest. My morality is so screwed up and deranged that I don’t think there is ever a circumstance in which it is moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist. I’m an atheist so this probably explains why I can’t understand the reason for putting this verse in the Bible to begin with. Let me be specific and somewhat mocking. At one point in time God thought it was moral to force some rape victims to marry their rapist but no longer thinks this is the case. Somewhere along the line, around the time of widespread government support services in some countries, He decided it’s no longer ok. God sounds incompetent. Personally, I would have written something like, Society must care for rape victims for as long as they live. And not force them to marry their rapist or to be viewed as damaged goods or in any other sort of asinine way. This is the gist of what I’d have written. Don’t nitpick it though since this is much better than what the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe could come up with.