I actually forget what my name was on Bible Discussion Forum, one where I was outed for my beautiful shiny sharp ax. I haven't used it yet, I don't know how, but I still have it!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Some of the most interesting answers have been OFF TOPIC
- Thread starter savagewind
- Start date
Genesis 34 which describes the rape of Dinah does not mention her again as a character in the narrative after verse two. It has been said in another thread that it was Dinah who told her father she was raped. But the scripture where it says the violation was found out just says "Jacob heard". I think it is called a grape vine. It is not possible to know what Dinah actually did other than "she went out", verse one.
To the men: There is criminal rape. It is a crime of violence. There is consensual sex, it can be a lot of things. But between those two um sexes, there are situations that are neither criminal rape, nor consensual. I believe the account of Dinah fits somewhere in the middle. It was neither criminal rape, nor was it consensual. He "took her". After a promise of marriage? No. Before. That is what made it unclean, isn't it? Also it was with someone who was not a Jew which would make it unclean in certain people's eyes. Moses had not been born yet, if I remember correctly. (that is a haha)
Disclaimer: I do not when the people of God became known as Jews, and neither do I care, so you can correct me if you want to or not.
To the men: There is criminal rape. It is a crime of violence. There is consensual sex, it can be a lot of things. But between those two um sexes, there are situations that are neither criminal rape, nor consensual. I believe the account of Dinah fits somewhere in the middle. It was neither criminal rape, nor was it consensual. He "took her". After a promise of marriage? No. Before. That is what made it unclean, isn't it? Also it was with someone who was not a Jew which would make it unclean in certain people's eyes. Moses had not been born yet, if I remember correctly. (that is a haha)
Disclaimer: I do not when the people of God became known as Jews, and neither do I care, so you can correct me if you want to or not.
I thought of an example. The Graduate is an example of sex that is neither rape, not is it consensual. Dustin did not have a mutual attraction to his mother-in-law (to be). She seduced him. If an act of sex is not because of mutual attraction but is due to any kind of seduction (wich is sexy coercion, isn't it?) and neither participant actively disagrees with it, can it be rightly called "consensual"? I don't think so.
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
It's rape. It would be "hard to prove" but under the definition of rape and coercian "seduction" counts.
But since it's woman on man it wouldn't get that much attention.
I don't agree. The definition I go by will be this one; the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
I believe suduction can not be called force or duress.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Except it doesn't say he forced her. It actually says afflicted.
People, do you know all that is in your head is not the real truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Am I an alien? :shout
I actually have a stupid theory (for all my theories are stupid, seeing that no one believes me) It says "Lays with affliction" meaning abase self, or deal hardly with. I think it was he who is feeling that way. Can it possible be referring to his thinking? "Tis a pity she's a Hebrew, I hate the Hebrews, but I love her" . Does that sound like rape?
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Actually it says he seized her - that is not consent.
Anah - means defile, ravish, force.
34:7 uses "nebalah" a crime.
34:13 makes it clear this was a crime - they killed them for it.
*
What is this, please?
Took - 204 occurances.
YHVH took the man
He took one rib
Lamech took wives
YHVH took of every clean animal and bird
Japheth took a garment
Nahor took wives
Terah took Abram
Abram took Sarai
Abraham took Ishmael
He took curds
king of Gerar and took Sarah (Here's one that matches! Yay!)
Abimelech ook sheep and oxen
in the morning took bread
Abraham took the wood
Isaac his son took his hand the fire
took the knife
I won't write all 204 of them
YHVH took the man
He took one rib
Lamech took wives
YHVH took of every clean animal and bird
Japheth took a garment
Nahor took wives
Terah took Abram
Abram took Sarai
Abraham took Ishmael
He took curds
king of Gerar and took Sarah (Here's one that matches! Yay!)
Abimelech ook sheep and oxen
in the morning took bread
Abraham took the wood
Isaac his son took his hand the fire
took the knife
I won't write all 204 of them
Force
Same word at Exodus 10:3
So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, "This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me.
So according to this scripture either you are wrong to know for sure or this scripture is using the wrong word.
Same word at Exodus 10:3
So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, "This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me.
So according to this scripture either you are wrong to know for sure or this scripture is using the wrong word.
Some more for force
And the angel of the LORD said to her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. Genesis 16:9
But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites Exodus 1:12
Any widow [or] orphan shall not afflict. Exodus 22:22
It is a day of sabbath rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance. Leviticus 16:31
And the angel of the LORD said to her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. Genesis 16:9
But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites Exodus 1:12
Any widow [or] orphan shall not afflict. Exodus 22:22
It is a day of sabbath rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance. Leviticus 16:31
I believe the account is about Shechem's surrender to Dinah. Surrender means "to bow down". It's about religion, not an interpersonal relationship between the two. See how Dinah is only mentioned once? And when Shechem is mentioned again it is all about surrender.
Isn't it true the brothers got angry because they knew God's promise to Abraham but now their own sister seems to be setting down roots in Canaan? Shechem took her in the sense that he took her from her family and her brothers. How else can you interpret the rest of the story? Shechem agreed to become like them. The brothers had already decided his fate, though which was purely evil, wasn't it?
Isn't it true the brothers got angry because they knew God's promise to Abraham but now their own sister seems to be setting down roots in Canaan? Shechem took her in the sense that he took her from her family and her brothers. How else can you interpret the rest of the story? Shechem agreed to become like them. The brothers had already decided his fate, though which was purely evil, wasn't it?
To being calling it what it is being called is to give some little excuse for what Levi and Simeon did. But they're dead, aren't they?
The promise was made to ABRAHAM "this land I will give YOU and your children, like the sands of the sea". That is how Shechem defiled Dinah, it was about The Land, not about revenge for a rape.
The promise was made to ABRAHAM "this land I will give YOU and your children, like the sands of the sea". That is how Shechem defiled Dinah, it was about The Land, not about revenge for a rape.
I will tell how I think Levi and Simeon were not going against YHVH. It would have been fine imo if the immediate household of Shechem had agreed to the circumcision. It seems to have been the whole city that was commanded to do it. That's just wrong.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Obviously it is also seized - look it up.
The words that are used together in the sentence make it plain it is forced rape - which is why the family chooses to kill them - rather then give her to him as a wife.
Here are a couple of early translations.
(Bishops 1568) Whom whe Sichem the sonne of Hemor the Heuite Lorde of the countrey sawe, he toke her, & lay with her, and forced her.
(Leeser) And Shechem the son of Chamor the Hivite, the prince of the country, saw her; and he took her, and lay with her, and did her violence.
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
You obviously need to look these words up - they have multiple meanings - and the correct meaning is chosen by its context relating to other words in the sentence.
Older Bible translations had no problem calling this forced/rape (see above) - it is the newer translations that seem to be attempting to hide violence in the Bible. Why? I don't know!
Here are a couple more using it as FORCE/RAPE -
2Sam 13:14 (KJV) Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
Jdg 20:5 (HRB) And the men of Gibeah rose up against me. And they went around the house against me at night; they had in mind to kill me, and they raped my concubine, and she died.
Jdg 20:5 (Geneva) And the men of Gibeah arose against me, and beset the house round about vpon mee by night, thinking to haue slaine me, and haue forced my concubine that she is dead.
Lam 5:11 (HRB) They raped the women in Zion, virgins in the cities of Judah.
*
*
Last edited: