On June 24th, Bob Rogland posted another long discussion on problemmatic OT
texts. Again, I will address part of this:
"Burgy asked how once can reconcile the supposed command of God to kill all
the Midianites except the girls who had never had sexual intercourse, who
were to be saved for the Israelite men, with the nature of God as revealed
in Jesus Christ."
While I did do this, I decided to try to separate the "killing, capture &
rape" verses from the "capture & rape" verses. Thus I (later) addressed the
"...it is a gratuitous assumption by Burgy that it involved child rape. In
some cases, particularly the young girls, it may simply have meant
Gratuitous assumption? In some cases? Here is a new challenge. Find a female
who would agree that the passages do not assume rape.
What we are doing here, of course, is arguing over word meanings. If you do
not like "rape," then give me the word you would use if it was YOU that was
a good looking young girl who was captured and told, after a month of
preparation, that you were required to have sexual intercourse with your
captor -- and that you had absolutely no say in the matter. Pretend I'm Dan
Rather, interviewing you. What word would you use?
"... while there can be no doubt that the good-looking older virgins were
taken as wives, the practice of taking a captive woman for a wife was
regulated and humanized somewhat by the Law: see Deuteronomy 21:10-14. ...
Like the regulation of divorce, rules governing marriage to captive women
ought to be considered an accommodation to the hardness of heart of the
Israelite men. The same could be said for rules governing slavery, and
probably a number of other practices in the OT (and NT) as well."
I have no problem agreeing with that much.
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 16 2002 - 16:23:47 EDT