logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Theophilus  
#1 Posted : Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:58:09 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
I've been discussing the mitzvots covered in TOM from #288 to #302 in the Crimes and Punishments chapter. I can understand the "shotgun wedding" principle but does the Deut 22:28-29 verse apply to rape as well?


Quote:
288) The Court shall pass sentence of death by stoning.

“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

As usual, this has virtually nothing to do with the authority of the Sanhedrin. This is one of several places, however, where death by stoning was the divinely prescribed punishment. Other instances include the overt worship (or merely the advocating of such worship) of false gods like Molech or Ba’al, and “cursing” Yahweh (which in one instance literally manifested itself in simply ignoring His Sabbath rest instructions—demonstrating the guilty party’s flippant attitude toward God). In the present case, the punishment is, once again, in response to adultery, since a “betrothed virgin” was legally married, even though the union had not yet been consummated.

In a fascinating display of wisdom, Yahweh built in a safeguard against a virgin being unfairly executed for being the victim of a rapist. If she were “in the city” when the sexual attack/encounter occurred, she would have been obligated to cry out for help. If she did not, it was to be presumed that she was a willing participant—hence an adulteress. (This system wouldn’t work in New York, you understand. It was designed for “cities” like bronze-age Beersheba or Shechem, close-knit communities where if you cried out for help, half a dozen guys would instantly come to your aid.) But what if the attack/encounter took place where no one was likely to hear her cries? Yahweh gave the virgin a get-out-of-stoning-free card:

“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. [Note that rapists get the death penalty.] But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, [it is presumed] but there was no one to save her.” (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

As far as Yahweh’s metaphor of adultery/fornication equating to the worship of false gods is concerned, it is clear that it isn’t the sexual contact per se that condemns someone (because that can be forced), but rather the willing offering of one’s affection to an illicit lover. To me, this just screams that it’s not so much one’s mode of religious observance (or lack of it) that God is looking at, but the attitude of the heart. Note further that Yahweh’s justice, when administered by men, is supposed to err on the side of mercy if it errs at all. One wonders why Maimonides was so fixated on the Court’s legal authorization to impose the death penalty.

(300) Impose a penalty of fifty shekels upon the seducer of an unbetrothed virgin and enforce the other rules in connection with the case.

“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)

The case of pre-marital sex between a man and an unbetrothed virgin is covered here and in the next two mitzvot. There doesn’t seem to be much of a distinction drawn between seduction and statutory rape in this case, presumably because the Inventor of hormones knows how it all works. As far as Yahweh is concerned, sex consummates a marriage; the physical union completes the spiritual union that betrothal initiates. So in the case described, though the beautiful picture a wedding presents has been goofed up, life goes on.

Though Maimonides calls it a “penalty,” the fifty shekels (specified in Deuteronomy 22) is actually a “bride-price,” in other words, a dowry. Any prospective husband would pay this sum to his father-in-law-to-be. However, in this case, the girl’s father has the option of forbidding the marriage, while keeping the dowry. This provision allows him to save his daughter from marriage to a total loser, or, of course, to an actual rapist. But normally, he would be prone to let mere sexual imprudence between his infatuated daughter and her amorous boyfriend—a rash and impulsive love match—proceed into marriage, for finding a mate for a daughter who wasn’t a virgin was difficult in that culture.

(301) The violator of an unbetrothed virgin shall marry her.

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

There was no option on the part of the young man, however. If the girl’s father allowed it to proceed, he would have to marry the young woman—it’s the prototypical shotgun wedding. This provision would have tended to keep casual or experimental sex to a minimum. Under the Torah, there was no such thing as I’m not ready to make a commitment, but you’re pretty hot, so let’s get it on. No, it’s either chastity or marriage (or stoning, if either lover were already betrothed).

We should note the radically different consequences Yahweh delineated for what to some might seem almost identical offenses—the case of sexual contact (whether presumed rape or consensual) with a betrothed virgin (as in Mitzvah #288) as opposed to with an unbetrothed virgin—death versus marriage. This makes it clear to me that it isn’t sex per se that Yahweh objects to, but rather betrayal. Sex within marriage is right and good; outside of marriage, it is treachery, treason, and deceit.

(302) One who has raped a damsel and has then, in accordance with the law, married her, may not divorce her.

“...and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

It gets even better, in a divine retribution sort of way. Not only must the young man pay the dowry and marry the young lady he has slept with, it’s what you might call a no-cut contract. If it “doesn’t work out,” tough toenails. There’s no divorce for you—ever. As one who has been married for over forty years, I can vouch for the concept of choosing your mate carefully.

Beyond the obvious practical implications of this precept, there is a far more serious side to this. There is a reason the Church, the Ekklesia, is called the “Bride of Christ,” and Israel was once characterized as Yahweh’s unfaithful wife. It is God’s pattern that a husband and wife are to be “one flesh”—they are not to be “put asunder.” When we become betrothed to Yahweh, we are His forever. But in the same way, those who foolishly jump into bed with Satan are doomed to share his fate forever—you can’t change your mind and divorce him. Like I said, choose your mate carefully.


The NLT has:
Quote:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

I noticed that The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible noted that there were 30+ Deuteronomy manuscripts, but none had chapter 22 beyond verse 19 and resumes at Deut 22:5. I'm struggling to understand why a raped daughter would ever be married off to her attacker. I'm guessing the principle is if her [parents thought the situation were other than an actual assault and the young couple simply were caught such as in the Exodus reference? If she were betrothed and rapped, I'd think the attacker would face dead. Am I mistaken?

Thank you for any insights you can share with me,

-Theophilus
Offline kp  
#2 Posted : Thursday, December 24, 2009 8:09:19 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Good catch, Theo. There "appears" to be a loophole in the Law---that a guy can get away with rape (sort of) by making sure his victim is not betrothed, and that he's willing to come up with the bride price. (Of course, he could only get away with this once---after that, it's adultery on his part, a stoning offense.) This would basically make the girl's father a pimp. Obviously not Yahweh's intention.

As usual, what God is trying to show us here has much more to do with spiritual truth than it does with earthly societal rules. At issue here are a few symbolic factors. (1) Sexual congress is a metaphor for spiritual alliance. (2) Betrothal is a legal, binding marriage contract, but speaks of a time prior to married cohabitation. The "betrothed virgin," then, is the mortal believer, one who is part of the "Bride of Yahshua." We haven't yet consummated the marriage, but our "Husband," Yahshua, considers us His legal wife anyway. (3) Married life is symbolic of eternal life (which explains why God hates divorce). (4) The male in the equation is symbolic of the authority figure in the relationship. In other words, he to whom the virgin is betrothed is actually Yahshua, while an "unbetrothed virgin" represents someone who is spiritually unaffiliated---"she" belongs to neither Yahweh nor Satan; she is someone who, if nothing changes, is destined for the proverbial "Door #2."

Here's what's happening. The unbetrothed virgin is a person who has made no spiritual alliance. She is therefore not under the protection of her husband-to-be, nor subject to his authority. So she has sex (forms a spiritual alliance, whether consensual or not) with a male (i.e., a potential spiritual authority figure---either Yahshua or satan, or alternately, a religious entity representing one or the other). Her father (Yahweh, if I'm not mistaken) must decide whether this is "true love" or whether it was a case of seduction and rape. He can either let the relationship stand, or forbid it (giving his defiled daughter another chance to find a proper mate). But note that the "bride price" has to be paid either way: the male has a debt to pay.

So let's flesh this out with a few hypothetical scenarios: Let's say the "unbetrothed virgin" is an Iraqi teenager who's a Muslim only because his parents and culture insist he must do certain things because "that's what we've always done." He has no relationship with allah, doesn't think twice about the cultural aspects of his national religion, and just wants to live his life in peace.

Scenario #1: He becomes a radical fundamentalist Islamist, a true worshipper of Allah and his prophet (piss be onto him), volunteers for a suicide mission, and blows himself up. His Father (Yahweh) lets the marriage proceed ('cause he's well and truly screwed anyway) and decrees that his rapist, satan, and he will spend eternity together. Further, satan must pay the "bride price" of frustration/loss of prestige/separation from light (etc.) for his trouble.

Scenario #2: He moves to Europe, gets a college education, and drops his Islamist tendencies in favor of secular humanism. He's still getting screwed by satan, but his Father Yahweh doesn't allow the marriage, hoping that he'll find true love with Yahshua at some future point. Satan still has a price to pay.

Scenario #3. He moves to America, gets a job, and drops his Islamist tendencies because he's fallen in with a bunch of people who honor Yahweh and follow Yahshua. Although formerly "unbetrothed," he falls in love with his true Savior. His Father Yahweh is happy to let the marriage proceed, and notes that Yahshua has already paid the "bride price." The bond between the lovers is so strong, there is nothing in the world that will ever again separate them. They will spend eternity together.

Or something like that.

kp
Offline Theophilus  
#3 Posted : Thursday, December 24, 2009 9:36:01 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
Thank you for the prompt reply Ken.

I think that I'm understanding the metaphorical symbolism you described more than the mundane literal application.

Looking at the metaphorical / symbolic side first, the only aspect I'm fuzzy on being wed / betrothed to a Spirit (above - Yah's or one from below) is our free willed ability to back out of accepting a Spiritual union during our lifetimes. Could a Jihadi trust in Allah and be well along the way to an eternal consequence with that dark spirit before being exposed to evidence or conscience and realize that he'd been dupped and change doors? I suppose that the same theoretically could apply to one like Judas who seemed to trust Yahweh and walked with Yahshua, assuming he ever really trusted Him and only later decided He didn't like Yah if his teacher and meal ticket was a suffering servant rather than offering tempral honor, power or other rewards?

On the mundane / litteral aspect, I was thinking that the principle was if the violated bethrothed girl could reasonably summon aide she was expected to callout for help and if she could not she was presumed guiltless and attacked. I would think that extenuating circumstanced would be considered by the congregation in judgement like did the attacker(s) have a knife to her or her sister throat?

On the unbretrothed mundane situation I was unclear how a repeqt offender would be stoned? Paying the bride price and not allowing the marriage would make the attack considered married? Also was thinking that the attackers marital status would affext whether adultery occured and he might be stoned on a first attack? I'm still not clear why in a mundane unbetrothered girl's case, a first time attacker would suufer no more severe penalty than paying a bride price with or without marriage, especially if the child were below marriagable age?

Thank you again,

Theophilus
Offline kp  
#4 Posted : Friday, December 25, 2009 3:37:37 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Quote:
...our free willed ability to back out of accepting a Spiritual union during our lifetimes.

I'm not sure about actual "union." Spiritual influence, certainly. Look at the demoniacs Yahshua freed.

Quote:
I'm still not clear why in a mundane unbetrothed girl's case, a first time attacker would suffer no more severe penalty than paying a bride price with or without marriage

Yeah, I think I misspoke here. You're right. There's no reason to suppose that the paying of the bride price would categorize someone as "married," though if the same thing happened later with another girl, it's likely the community would get the picture and start picking up rocks. I think it's abundantly clear that Yahweh never intended anyone to get away with actual rape. It seems to me that the precept here was merely designed to put teeth in the kind of do-it-yourself betrothal teens with raging hormones have been wont to exercise since the dawn of time. God's point is apparently, "If you think you're old enough to have sex, then you're also old enough to live as responsible monogamous married people. You can't have it both ways."

kp

Offline James  
#5 Posted : Friday, December 25, 2009 6:52:05 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
kp wrote:
God's point is apparently, "If you think you're old enough to have sex, then you're also old enough to live as responsible monogamous married people. You can't have it both ways."


Great way of putting it Ken

I have a 13 yr old sister is starting to date, I'm debating showing her some of TOM sections related to sex.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Theophilus  
#6 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 3:59:57 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
...our free willed ability to back out of accepting a Spiritual union during our lifetimes.


I'm not sure about actual "union." Spiritual influence, certainly. Look at the demoniacs Yahshua freed.

A good point. The unclean spirits in these accounts were able to indwell people such as Mary Magdalene or even swin, although I’m presuming that pigs while possessing souls lack a neshamah to relate to or be eternally born anew in Spirit. I was unsure how better to express the spiritual birth beyond a chosen union?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm still not clear why in a mundane unbetrothed girl's case, a first time attacker would suffer no more severe penalty than paying a bride price with or without marriage


Yeah, I think I misspoke here. You're right. There's no reason to suppose that the paying of the bride price would categorize someone as "married," though if the same thing happened later with another girl, it's likely the community would get the picture and start picking up rocks. I think it's abundantly clear that Yahweh never intended anyone to get away with actual rape. It seems to me that the precept here was merely designed to put teeth in the kind of do-it-yourself betrothal teens with raging hormones have been wont to exercise since the dawn of time. God's point is apparently, "If you think you're old enough to have sex, then you're also old enough to live as responsible monogamous married people. You can't have it both ways."

kp


Ken, I agree that neither Yahweh or the Israelite communities would tolerate actual rape. It does on the surface that betrothed women are afforded a greater deterrent to sexual assult under the terms expressed in the Torah than their un-betrothed peers however.

I can see the Spiritual metaphor you described above and agree with your comments about putting teeth into the do-it-yourself teen betrothal process. I just wish that I could see what we presume to be going on more clearly expressed. That is, that pedophiles would be consistently and expressly punished with something more than paying a bride price. If the perp were married / betrothed himself, I presume he’d be punishable as an adulterer. If he were not, I’d hope that the community would be empowered to act to protect their most vulnerable members or otherwise access the situation and make a just verdict as to how to handle violators either in the words of the Torah or applying the principles the Torah gives and acting appropriately even if specific guidance for every circumstance is not present. Am I missing any Torah instructions that cover these apparent omissions?

Thank you,

Respectfully,

-Theophilus
Offline kp  
#7 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 7:07:53 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Quote:
Am I missing any Torah instructions that cover these apparent omissions?


Well, actually, you needn't have worried: the whole thing is covered elsewhere:

“None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am Yahweh.” (Leviticus 18:6)

“The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover.” (Leviticus 18:9)

“The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:10)

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shall you take her…daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near of kin to her. It is wickedness.” (Leviticus 18:17)

That about covers it for pedophilia within a man's family. And if I missed any possible scenarios, I'm pretty sure Yahweh covered them elsewhere. But what about scumbag pedophile kidnappers who nab little girls off the playground?

“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

kp
Offline Theophilus  
#8 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 7:59:35 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
Thank you Ken, for covering the Torah's prohibitions against incest and intra-family pedophelia.

Quote:
That about covers it for pedophilia within a man's family. And if I missed any possible scenarios, I'm pretty sure Yahweh covered them elsewhere. But what about scumbag paedophile kidnappers who nab little girls off the playground?

“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)


Okay this helps me very much so long as "a man" in Exodus 21:16 is also understood to be a person, i.e. an unbetrothed girl. If true, then whether the dirtbag sold his kidnapped girl(s) into prostitution, ransom or otherwise sold a kidnapped person for financial gain or even is found to have her taken by coercion, then it seems like we have most if not all of the circumstances I wrote about covered.

So the penalty of a bride-price with or without "shotgun wedding" for non-familial sex by a non-betrothed man with a unbetrothed victim implies that she was not a victim of incest, familial rape or kidnapping but was a case of teen hormones getting the better of a couple? The references to "a man" and apparent suggestion that a. If someone were sexually assaulting an unbetrothed girl, even if he were unbetrothed himself, he would stand under the Torah to suffer a death penalty under the kidnapping in hand provision of Exodus 22:16 then?

Another aspect I was looking at was whether there is a significant difference between the NLT and the version used in TOM (NKJ?) of Deuteronomy 22:28-29?
Quote:
If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) – TOM

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her" - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT.


NLT uses rape openly, but as we’ve been listening to YY shows on BTR I think there is sound reasons for questioning the reliability of the NLT. The reference to “and they are found out” as opposed to “he” suggests to me that there is a consensual aspect here. Digging further I found:
http://www.answering-isl.../Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

Not surprisingly this article agrees that rape is not in view in this verse and explains why. I'm still reviewing these concepts to ensure I’ve got them but appreciate your help in improving my understanding.

-Theophilus
Offline kp  
#9 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 4:24:04 PM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Yeah, the NLT's version is clearly (another) case of allowing their preconceived (or is that merely ill-conceived) theology leak through into their "translation." Rape is clearly not meant. What were they thinkin'?

And, yes, I would construe "man" in Ex 21:16 to mean "a person," 'cause there's no reason in context or scripture at large to suggest that kidnapping a female is okay, just because she doesn't have a Y chromosome. Ish can be legitimately translated "human being." (Strongs) Or it can mean, "anyone, whoever, someone, a certain one, i.e., a reference to whom or what is spoken about which is not explicit (as in Lev 15:5)" (Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains).

kp
Offline Theophilus  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, December 29, 2009 8:41:54 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
kp wrote:
Yeah, the NLT's version is clearly (another) case of allowing their preconceived (or is that merely ill-conceived) theology leak through into their "translation." Rape is clearly not meant. What were they thinkin'?

And, yes, I would construe "man" in Ex 21:16 to mean "a person," 'cause there's no reason in context or scripture at large to suggest that kidnapping a female is okay, just because she doesn't have a Y chromosome. Ish can be legitimately translated "human being." (Strongs) Or it can mean, "anyone, whoever, someone, a certain one, i.e., a reference to whom or what is spoken about which is not explicit (as in Lev 15:5)" (Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains).

kp


Given the NLTs creative and misleading rendering I was hoping that we at the forum can amplify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in YY fashion since it seems to be the passage most suggesting that the Torah condones rape.

One problem I see in doing so is that in the DSS Deutornomy 22 runs only from verses 1-19. Should the the MT, LX or other source text be used? Is there an inter-linear source that covers already covers it avialable online?

Theophilus
Offline James  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, December 29, 2009 4:13:12 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Theophilus wrote:

One problem I see in doing so is that in the DSS Deutornomy 22 runs only from verses 1-19. Should the the MT, LX or other source text be used? Is there an inter-linear source that covers already covers it avialable online?

Theophilus


Usually the MT isn't too bad, unless you are dealing with Messianic prophecy, then you have to worry. Out side of that, the best thing to do is look at the root letters and see what other words are formed with those root letters.

It's too late tonight, but I will take a few hours and amplify Deuteronomy 22:28 & 29 tomorrow and post it for you.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Theophilus  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 2:24:34 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
James wrote:
Usually the MT isn't too bad, unless you are dealing with Messianic prophecy, then you have to worry. Out side of that, the best thing to do is look at the root letters and see what other words are formed with those root letters.

It's too late tonight, but I will take a few hours and amplify Deuteronomy 22:28 & 29 tomorrow and post it for you.


I appreciate your efforts James. In a brief attempt at reserching inter-linears based on older scources, I found a site that found a resource based on the Westminster Leningrad Codex with vowels along with the "Authorised Version" for an accompanying translation. The same site links to a Greek inter-linear based on the Scriveners Textus Receptus 1894 also with AV translation.

The site link is: http://www.scripture4all...rlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

Quote:
Deutoronomy 22:28
That (ki- ...) he-is-finding (imtza - ...) man (aish - ...) maiden (nor - ...) maiden (nore- ...) virgin (bthule- ...) who (ashr - ...) not (la - ...) she-is-betrothed (arshe - ...)and-he-grasps-her (u-thpsh-e- ...) and-he-lies-down (u-shkb- ...) with-her (om-e- ...) and-they-are-found (u-nmtzau- ...)

Deuternomy 22:29
and-he-gives (u-nthn- ...) the man (e-aish- ...) the-one-lying-down (e-shkb- ...) with-her (om-e - ...) to-father-of (l-abi- ...) the-maiden (e-nor- ...) the-maiden (e-nore- ...) fifty (Chmshim - ...) silver (ksph- ...) and-to-him (u-l-u- ...) she-shall-become (theie- ...) to-woman (l-ashe- ...) inasmuch-as (thchth - ...)which (ashr - ...) he-humiliated-her (on-e - ...) not (la - ...) he-shall-not-be able (iukl- ...) to-dismiss-of-her (shlch-e - ...) all-of (kl - ...) days-of-him (imi-u - ...)


What I hope to see is if something like this can be rendered more like a YY style amplification and Hebrew root words? The link also shows Babylonian style Hebrew text.

Edited by user Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4:53:24 AM(UTC)  | Reason: corrected typo

Offline James  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:41:14 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Deuteronomy Chapter 22 wrote:
28 If (kiy - surely and indeed, rather, instead, but, except for, but if, because, for, for the reason of, when, and if) a man (ish) finds (motsa – discovers, uncovers, learns the location of, obtains, and comes to posses) a young woman (bethulah - a mature young woman that has never had sexual intercourse, and under the authority and protection of the father, a class of young female, though the class may be virgins, the focus is on the youth group, dear one, one cared for, loved one, formally, virgin daughter, a young woman who is loved by the father, with the associated meaning of being pure, innocent, and under the protection and care of the father), a female child (naarah – female of any age between infancy and adulthood) which relationally (asher) is not betrothed (aras – pledged to be married), and takes hold of (taphas – seizes, captures, dishonors, and profanes) her, and lays (shakab – sleeps, or has sexual intercourse) with her and they are found (motsa – discovered, uncovered, arrested), 29and the man (ish) who laid (shakab – slept, or had sexual intercourse) with her, gives (nathan – places, sets, commits, entrusts, delivers, and bestows in a healthy and enduring fashion) unto the female child’s (naarah – female of any age between infancy and adulthood) father, fifty (chamishshim) silver (keseph – silver metal, money, property or belongings), then to him she will exist (hayah) as a wife and woman (`issah), under (tachath – beneath, underneath) her who relationally (asher) he afflicted (anah – disturbed, oppressed, afflicted suffering, raped, humbled, violated sexually), he will not be capable of (yakol – be able to, succeed in, overcome in, prevail in) sending her out (shalach) all of (kol) his days (yowm).


The biggest thing I noticed here is that the word tachath is usually ignored in translations. It appears that most translate it along with ahser simply because. But since ahser can mean who, and tachath can mean because, but most prevalent definitions relate to being underneath I choose this rendering. If because was intended, asher alone could have been used, but since tachath was used as well, it is likely that it was meant to convey something other than because.

Disclaimer: This is my translation, and is subject to error, so if anyone finds error in it, please let me know.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Theophilus  
#14 Posted : Thursday, December 31, 2009 6:38:54 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
Just so readers know, I carried over this translation topic to the YY Research section's Translations and Amplification section under the topic "Deuteronomy 22:28-29" which also includes the tools and source material used for the rendering above.

What I found interesting was what James noted on the use of "under" as in the humilitor would be bound under the humilatee / humilated. That would certianly add some teeth to the consequences of casullly and illicitly hooking up with a young unattached lady in a torah observant society.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.