<p>(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)</p>
<pre><code>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.
</code></pre>
<p>well, if the bible changes because of Man’s translation, how can you trust it is the word of God, if man changes the word of God</p>
<p>Thx CGM. I’ll look it up. Wasn’t disagreeing with you, just looking at your translations. There are a lot of words that get translated by different people and mean different things. I will look that up. There’s a lot of translations of the Bible. Most people agree on what the words are. However, what they mean is something else. While the Koran is a much younger book, the same applies there also. But I will have to do some research on what you’ve quoted with contextual clues. Just like the work “Knew” in the bible, when referenced to a man and woman, generally means to have had sex. But yet that could also be misinterpreted.</p>
<p>Not arguing your post, just that I really didn’t see what your point was.</p>
<p>but I digress, you have Ann Coulter, the queen of the right, talking about Perfecting Jews…</p>
<p>not MY translations, btw</p>
<p>and my point was whe you have someone like McCain talking about preferring a Christian President or some debate about whose religion is less awful, and a poster talking about rape in the bible, and another denying it is in there it is important to show what is in the bible</p>
<p>and, the bible should not just be studying in some prettified AMerican version, it needs to be studied from the beginning, and one needs to understand what translations can do</p>
<p>for instance, man shall not lay with man- a line that has been used to explain away hatred for homosexuals</p>
<p>who really knows how that phrase, that one line, really started out, something that has so much power, a line that man has translated over and over again, lowly clerks often doing the work</p>
<p>I am just harking back to the OP and McCain- who says he would prefer a Christian president (and then well back tracked)- that saying you are Christian and studying the bible does NOT mean you are a good person, necessarily, that it is some kind of barametor, which some seem to claim, ie McCain</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, it’s hardly bigoted – the Spartans were known for that practice (I suggest reading up on Spartan culture and military training).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, once again – Mohammed did NOT marry a 6 yr old (he purportedly only was betrothed to her at that age – which wasn’t uncommon at that time around the world – esp. among the powerful and wealthy were marriages were more political/economic unions than anything else).</p>
<p>The same can be said for having multiple spouses and concubines to boot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above.</p>
<p>Plus, if Mohammed was truly a pedophile (i.e. – having a sexual interest in prepubescent children), he would only have married prepubescent children (which he didn’t). And as you even pointed out, he didn’t marry this girl until after she turned 9.</p>
<p>If Mohammed was truly a pedophile as you claim - would he have only remained married to his wife (who, btw was older than him) til her passing - instead of having other (much younger) wives?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, recent studies have shown that puberty starting as early as age 8 isn’t uncommon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And puberty at an earlier age has everything to do w/ having adequate food and water – and since the girl in question came from a seemingly wealthy family, it wouldn’t be unusual for her to have undergone puberty at such an age (esp. since Jewish girls underwent Bat Miztvahs at age 12, not much older).</p>
<p>Anyway – can you prove that she didn’t?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, slavery and what is considered adulthood over human history are two very different things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>During American colonial history and the Westward expansion (which, btw, wasn’t that long ago – it wasn’t uncommon for girls of 13 or 14 yrs of age to marry).</p>
<p>And yes – certainly in these “enlightened times” (which seemingly doesn’t apply to your posts) slavery was/is a dark chapter in human history. </p>
<p>Nonetheless – how people saw slavery changed over the ages. During ancient times – slavery wasn’t based on skin color or race and many slaves (particularly, the well educated ones) were considered important parts of the family unit (w/ many being able to eventually buy their freedom and even amass their own great wealth and slaves).</p>
<p>It was only during recent history that justification for slavery became based on skin color/race and that such beings (being “lesser”) were inherently fitted to a life of enslavement.</p>
<p>The thread was dead for three months. Just let it go…</p>
<p>Meh.</p>
<p>If you’re not interested, it’s simple enough not to read (much less bother to post or even click on the thread).</p>