died for yo berliner $in$
>died for yo berliner $in$
>>died for yo berliner $in$
>>>died for yo berliner $in$
>>>>died for yo berliner $in$
>>>>>died for yo berliner $in$
tendies gate framed obamagerbil
sauce?
deep and dumb in teh buckkket of trotskyite is a niggGAHY piece nazi tryin to get in yo orifice
>>19239255
Genesis 34:2–3
Leningrad Codex (1008) King James Version (1611) New International Version (1978) Susanne Scholz (2014)
[53]וַיַּ֨רְא אֹתָ֜הּ שְׁכֶ֧ם בֶּן־חֲמֹ֛ור הַֽחִוִּ֖י נְשִׂ֣יא הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּקַּ֥ח אֹתָ֛הּ וַיִּשְׁכַּ֥ב אֹתָ֖הּ וַיְעַנֶּֽהָ׃ And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite prince of the country saw her he took her and lay with her and defiled her.[54] When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her.[54] When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he took her, and he laid her, and he raped her.[52]
[55]וַתִּדְבַּ֣ק נַפְשֹׁ֔ו בְּדִינָ֖ה בַּֽת־יַעֲקֹ֑ב וַיֶּֽאֱהַב֙ אֶת־הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ וַיְדַבֵּ֖ר עַל־לֵ֥ב הַֽנַּעֲרָֽ׃ And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.[56] His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her.[56] And he stayed with/kept Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and he lusted after the young woman, and he tried to quiet the young woman.[52]
Linguistic analysis
Further information: Textual variants in the Hebrew Bible § Genesis 34
Mary Anna Bader (2006) notes the division between verses 2 and 3, and writes that "It is strange and upsetting for the modern reader to find the verbs 'love' and 'dishonor' together, having the same man as their subject and the same woman as their object."[57] Later, she writes that "The narrator gives the reader no information about Dinah's thoughts or feelings or her reactions to what has taken place. Shechem is not only the focalizor but also the primary actor…The narrator leaves no room for doubt that Shechem is the center of these verses. Dinah is the object (or indirect object) of Shechem's actions and desires."[58] Frank M. Yamada (2008) argues that the abrupt transition between Genesis 34:2 and 34:3 was a storytelling technique due to the fact that the narrative focused on the men, a pattern which he perceives in other rape narratives as well, also arguing that the men's responses are depicted in a mixed light. "The rape of Dinah is narrated in a way that suggests there are social forces at work, which complicate the initial seal violation and will make problematic the resulting male responses. […] The abrupt transition from rape to marriage, however, creates a tension in the reader's mind…the unresolved issue of punishment anticipates the response of Simeon and Levi."[59]
Contrary to Bader and Yamada, however, Scholz (2021) asserted that, despite being a passive object, Dinah rather than Shechem is central in the narrative, and the verbs in verse 3 are widely mistranslated. דָּבַק dabaq, frequently translated as 'to love (someone)', is never translated like that elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but as 'to cling to (someone)' (Ruth 1:14 NRSV), 'to keep close to (someone)' (Ruth 2:23 NRSV), 'to remain close to (someone)' (Psalm 101:3 A. A. Anderson), 'to retain (the inheritance)' (Numbers 36:7,9 NRSV), or 'to keep something (possession)' according to Wilhelm Gesenius. Scholz concluded: "…'to love' is entirely inadequate. A better translation emphasizes spatial closeness: 'Shechem stayed with Dinah' or "Shechem kept Dinah,' in the sense of not allowing her to leave."[60] In the given context, the middle verb אָהַב aheb is better translated as 'to lust after (someone)' or 'to desire (someone)' rather than 'to love (someone)', as this feeling is sexual rather than romantic and entirely one-sided from a controlling subject to a sexually forced object.[61] The third verb is part of a phrase, וַיְדַבֵּ֖ר עַל־לֵ֥ב הַֽנַּעֲרָֽ׃ way-ḏab-bêr ‘al-lêḇ han-na-‘ă-rā, literally meaning "and he spoke to the young woman's heart". While many translations render this as "he spoke tenderly to her" (NRSV), Scholz followed Georg Fischer (1984), who noted the same phrase in the Hebrew Bible always appears when "the situation is wrong, difficult, or danger is in the air",[note 3] and should be understood as "to try to talk against a negative opinion" or "to change a person's mind". Therefore, Scholz argued that Shechem tried to calm down Dinah after the rape and to change her negative opinion by talking to her, and rendered the last part of verse 3 as "He tried to quiet down the young woman."[62]
>>19239255
Historical-ethical analysis
Shechem seizes Dinah. Italian artist, 17th century.
Shechem's rape of Dinah in Genesis 34 is described in the text itself as "a thing that should not be done."[63] Susanne Scholz (2000) writes that "The brothers' revenge, however, also demonstrates their conflicting views about women. On the one hand they defend their sister. On the other hand they do not hesitate to capture other women as if these women were their booty. The connection of the rape and the resulting revenge clarifies that no easy solutions are available to stop rapists and rape-prone behavior. In this regard Genesis 34 invites contemporary readers to address the prevalence of rape through the metaphoric language of a story."[64] In a different work, Scholz (2010) writes that "During its extensive history of interpretation, Jewish and Christian interpreters mainly ignored Dinah. […] in many interpretations, the fraternal killing is the criminal moment, and in more recent years scholars have argued explicitly against the possibility that Shechem rapes Dinah. They maintain that Shechem's love and marriage proposal do not match the 'scientifically documented behavior of a rapist'."[65][66] Scholz (2000) argued that Dinah's silence does not mean she consented: "The literary analysis showed, however, that despite this silence Dinah is present throughout the story. Indeed, everything happens because of her. Informed by feminist scholarship, the reading does not even require her explicit comments."[67]
Rabbi and scholar Burton Visotzky (2010) stated that the story describes a marry-your-rapist rule:[68] >>19239261
Genesis 39
José y la mujer de Putifar, oil on canvas by Esquivel (1854)
Main article: Potiphar's wife
Some have argued that a rare Biblical instance of sexual harassment and assault perpetrated against a man by a woman can be found in Genesis 39.[72] In this chapter, the enslaved Joseph is repeatedly propositioned by the wife of his master Potiphar. Joseph refuses to have sex with her, as he has no marital right to do so and it would be a sin against the god Yahweh (Genesis 39:6–10).[72] Potiphar's wife eventually demands that he come to bed with her and grabs at his clothing (Genesis 39:12). Joseph escapes, leaving the article of clothing with her (different translations describe the article of clothing as, for example, Joseph's "garment", "robe", "coat", or even simply "clothes"). Potiphar's wife then tells first her servants, and then her husband, that Joseph had attacked her (Genesis 39:13–18).[72] Joseph is sent to prison (Genesis 39:19–20), where he remains until his God-given ability to interpret dreams leads the Pharaoh to ask for his help (Genesis 41:14).[72]
Scholars such as Meir Sternberg (1985) characterise the woman's repetitive behaviour towards Joseph as sexual assault.[72] McKinlay (1995) noted that Potiphar's wife is treated as an object in his master's possession (Gen 39:8–9), and the reason Joseph refuses is not because he does not want to have sex with her, but because it would violate his master's trust and be a sin against Yahweh.[72] It could be argued that the woman is trying to assert herself as a subject who makes her own choices instead of remaining an object owned by her husband, and invites Joseph to join her in this action which the narrative frames as a 'sin.'[72] Simultaneously, however, she abuses her position of power as the slave master's wife to proposition Joseph, and to punish him for refusal.[72] Susan Tower Hollis (1989) suggests that the narrative of Potiphar's wife 'is in line with certain ancient folk-tales, where a 'woman makes vain overtures to a man and then accuses him of attempting to force her', with the man 'unjustly punished for his alleged attempt to seduce the woman.'[72]
Numbers 31
Main article: Numbers 31
Midianite women, children and livestock taken captive by Israelite soldiers after all Midianite men had been killed and their towns burnt. The Bible and its story (1908).
Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to [Yahweh] in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck [Yahweh]'s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
— Numbers 31:13–18 NIV)[73]
This has been interpreted as a passage making rape 'a normative practice in war'.[74] Rabbi and scholar Shaye J. D. Cohen (1999) argued that "the implications of Numbers 31:17–18 are unambiguous […] we may be sure that for yourselves means that the warriors may 'use' their virgin captives sexually", adding that Shimon bar Yochai understood the passage 'correctly'. On the other hand, he noted that other rabbinical commentaries such as B. and Y. Qiddushin and Yevamot claimed "that for yourselves meant 'as servants.' Later apologists, both Jewish and Christian, adopted the latter interpretation."[75]
Deuteronomy
Part of a series on
Christianity and gender
"Adam and Eve" by Albrecht Dürer (1504)
Theology
Proverbs 31
1 Timothy 2:12
Biblical womanhood
Christian views on marriage
Deaconess
Jesus' interactions with women
List of women in the Bible
Ordination of women
Paul the Apostle and women
Rape in the Hebrew Bible
Stay-at-home daughter
Women as theological figures
Women in the Bible
Women in Christianity
Major positions
Other positions
Ordination of women in Christianity
Church and society
Organizations
Theologians and authors (by view)
Theologians and authors (by branch)
vte
Deuteronomy 20
See also: Wartime sexual violence
Deuteronomy 20:14 indicates that all women and child captives become enslaved property:[76]
As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder [Yahweh] your God gives you from your enemies. (Deuteronomy 20:14 NIV)[77]
In their human rights study of wartime sexual violence, Kennedy‐Pipe & Stanley (2000) referred to Deuteronomy 20:14 when stating: 'The advocacy of rape in war was prevalent throughout ancient Near East history and is evident in the Hebrew Bible: women are frequently depicted as mere objects of male possession and control. Biblical references clearly illustrate this point in relation to the treatment of women in wartime, where they were regarded as 'spoils of war'.'[78] >>19239267
Deuteronomy 22
Further information: Deuteronomy 22
Scholz (2021) stated that the texts of Deuteronomy 22:25–29 'are widely recognized as rape legislation', while Deuteronomy 22:22–24 as well as Deuteronomy 21:10–14 'are more contested and are not usually characterized as rape laws'.[82] The NIV renders them as follows:
-
If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
-
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,
-
you shall take both of them to the gate of that town andstone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
-
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
-
Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor,
-
for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
-
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
-
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. (Deuteronomy 22:22–29 NIV)[83]
Cheryl Anderson, in her book Ancient Laws and Contemporary Controversies: The Need for Inclusive Bible Interpretation (2009), said that:[84]
Clearly, these laws do not take into account the female's perspective. After a rape, [the victim] would undoubtedly see herself as the injured party and would probably find marriage to her rapist to be distasteful, to say the least. Arguably, there are cultural and historical reasons why such a law made sense at the time. […] Just the same, the law communicates the message that faith tradition does not (and should not) consider the possibility that women might have different yet valid perspectives.
Verse 22:22 does not specifically address the wife's complicity, and therefore Adele Berlin's interpretation (2008) is that even if she was raped, the law dictates she must be put to death since she has been defiled by the extramarital encounter.[81] However, according to the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (1882–1925), the crime committed was consensual adultery, and therefore both parties were guilty.[85]
Frank M. Yamada (2008) opined that Deuteronomy 22:23–24, which commands punishment for the engaged virgin woman if the act takes place in the city, was not about rape, but adultery, because the engaged woman was already considered to be the reserved property of her future husband. He also argued that the Deuteronomic laws treat women as the property of men, and that "the Deuteronomic laws […] do not address the crime of rape as sexual violence against a woman as such", but as an economic crime against her father or (future) husband. Because it was the father's prerogative to marry his daughter off to a man of his choice, payment of a dowry of fifty shekels of silver to the deflowered woman's father is mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:28–29 as a restitution for her unplanned loss of virginity. Yamada pointed out that there was no death penalty for either party in this latter scenario, but a marry-your-rapist provision, which he compared to Shechem's offer of marriage including a bride price after raping Dinah in Genesis 34:12.[86]
Regarding 22:25–27, Craig S. Keener (1996) considered it a rape scenario, comparing it to the Laws of Eshnunna §26.[note 4] He noted that "if no one else was present as a witness of her innocence but she was clearly violated, biblical law assumes [the woman's] innocence without requiring witnesses (22:27); she does not bear the burden of proof to argue that she did not consent. […] If the couple definitely had intercourse, the man was guilty either way, but if the woman might have been innocent, her innocence must be assumed."[88] Davidson (2011) added, "Thus the Mosaic law protects the sexual purity of a betrothed woman (and protects the one to whom she is betrothed), and prescribing the severest penalty to the man who dares to sexually violate her."[89]
Robert S. Kawashima noted (2011) that regardless of whether the rape of a girl occurs in the country or the city, these verses imply that she "can be guilty of a crime, but not, technically speaking, a victim of a crime, for which reason her noncomplicity does not add to the perpetrator's guilt."[81] >>19239270
Verses 28 and 29
Further information: Marry-your-rapist law § Hebrew Bible
Deuteronomy 22:28–29 has been a rather controversial part of this chapter, with some modern scholars arguing that it is a marry-your-rapist law. Bible translations interpret the passage differently, with many modern editions translating the term שָׁכַב šākab as "to rape", where older translations usually preferred "to lie with". Similarly, most modern translations render תָּפַשׂ tāphaś as "to seize" , whereas older translations generally preferred "to lay hold on".[90] Finally, עָנָה anah/inah is almost universally translated as "to humble" in older English translations, but almost always as "to violate" in modern translations. The Good News Translation even rendered the passage as "he forced her to have intercourse with him", and God's Word Translation made it "he raped her".[91] Irrespective of whether or not the woman had given consent to the sexual act, or will give consent to marriage, the man is required to marry her by paying her parents a dowry to settle the matter.[92]
Theologian John Gill (1746–63) observed that a different verb is used in 22:28 (תָּפַשׂ tāphaś) than in 22:25 (חָזַק ḥāzaq, chazaq) for "to lay hold on". He thought the former was more 'enticing' and 'loving' (comparing it to Exodus 22:16, which he deemed consensual) and the latter more 'forceful' and 'violent'; he concluded that verse 25 described rape and verse 28 consensual sex.[93] Similarly, theologian Charles Ellicott (1897) interpreted Deuteronomy 22:28–29 as a law concerning the offense of premarital intercourse through 'seduction', also comparing it to Exodus 22:16–17 which mentions that the woman's father can turn down this offer of marriage.[94] However, even though almost all scholars agree that Exodus 22:16–17 describes a consensual situation, it does not specify that the man "violated" the woman, whereas Deuteronomy 22:29 does.[95] The Hebrew word used here for "violated" is עָנָה anah or inah, which (depending on the context) can mean "to rape, to force [sexually], to defile, to violate, to ravish, to mistreat, to afflict, to humble/humiliate, to oppress, to subject/submit/subdue, to weaken".[19][17] Especially when a Hebrew verb is in the pi'el (intensifying) form, this adds force,[96] and in Deuteronomy 22:29 עִנָּ֔הּ ‘in-nāh is in the pi'el.[95] In several other cases in the Hebrew Bible where this word is used to describe a man and a woman interacting, for example Judges 20:5[note 1] and 2 Samuel 13:14,[note 2] it is usually describing a man forcing a woman to have sex against her will (that is, rape).[18]
Richard M. Davidson (2011) regarded Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as a law concerning statutory rape. He argued that the laws do support the role of women in the situation, writing, "even though the woman apparently consents to engage in sexual intercourse with the man in these situations, the man nonetheless has 'afflicted/humbled/violated her'. The Edenic divine design that a woman's purity be respected and protected has been violated. […] Even though the woman may have acquiesced to her seducer, nonetheless according to the law, the dowry is 'equal to the bride wealth for virgins' (Exodus 22:16): she is treated financially as a virgin would be! Such treatment upholds the value of a woman against a man taking unfair advantage of her, and at the same time discourages sexual abuse."[89] Valerie Tarico (2015) was critical of Deuteronomy 22:28–29, saying that "The punishments for rape have to do not with compassion or trauma to the woman herself but with honor, tribal purity, and a sense that a used woman is damaged goods."[97]
Deuteronomy 28
See also: Ki Tavo
Deuteronomy 28:15–64 contains "curses for disobedience"; things that will happen, according to verse 15, 'if you do not obey Yahweh your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you.'[98] In particular, Deuteronomy 28:30 states: 'You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit.' (New International Version).[98] The word used is יִשְׁכָּבֶ֔נָּה yiškāḇennāh, derived from the verb שָׁכַב šāgal, meaning 'to ravish, to rape, to violate', or euphemistically translated 'to lie with'.[19][31] Some scholars think that Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty (written around 675 BCE) served as a literary model for these curses in Deuteronomy 28, as well as content in Deuteronomy 13, due to strong textual similarities.[99][100] Steymans (2013) concluded that this text was therefore probably written between the death of Esarhaddon in 672 BCE and the probable adoption of the Book of Deuteronomy by king Josiah in 622 BCE.[100] Deuteronomy 28:30 corresponds to Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty (SAA 2 6) 11.425-426 (§41), in which the accursed man's fiancée would also be raped, and his house and vineyard would also be lost.[99] >>19239284
Judges
Main article: Levite's concubine
The Levite finds his gang-raped concubine dead on his doorstep. Art by Gustave Doré (1880).
Trible devotes a chapter in Texts of Terror to the rape of the concubine in the Book of Judges, titled "An Unnamed Woman: The Extravagance of Violence". About the rape of the concubine itself, she wrote, "The crime itself receives few words. If the storyteller advocates neither pornography or sensationalism, he also cares little about the women's fate. The brevity of this section on female rape contrasts sharply with the lengthy reports on male carousing and male deliberations that precede it. Such elaborate attention to men intensifies the terror perpetrated upon the woman."[101] After noting that differences in the Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible make it unclear whether or not the concubine was dead the following morning ("the narrator protects his protagonist through ambiguity"),[102] Trible writes that "Neither the other characters nor the narrator recognizes her humanity. She is property, object, tool, and literary device. [..] In the end, she is no more than the oxen that Saul will later cut in pieces and send throughout all the territory of Israel as a call to war."[103]
Scholz notes the linguistic ambiguity of the passage and the variety of interpretations that stem from it. She wrote that:[104]
since this narrative is not a 'historical' or 'accurate' report about actual events, the answers to these questions reveal more about a reader's assumptions regarding gender, androcentrism, and sociopolitical practices than can be known about ancient Israelite life based on Judges 19. […] Predictably, interpreters deal differently with the meaning of the story, depending on their hermeneutical interests.
Yamada believes that the language used to describe the plight of the concubine make the reader sympathize with her, especially during the rape and its aftermath. "Thus, the narrator's elaborate description of the woman's attempt to return to the old man's house highlights for the reader the devastating effects of the preceding night's events, emphasizing her desolate state. The woman's raped and exhausted body becomes a symbol of the wrong that is committed when 'every man did what was right in his own eyes.' The image of this woman struggling to the door demands a response from the participants in the story."[105]
2 Samuel
2 Samuel 11
David and Bathsheba. Anonymous 17th-century painting.
Further information: Bathsheba § Critical commentary
Some scholars see the episode of David's adultery with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 as an account of a rape. David and Diana Garland suggest that:
Since consent was impossible, given her powerless position, David in essence raped her. Rape means to have sex against the will, without the consent, of another – and she did not have the power to consent. Even if there was no physical struggle, even if she gave in to him, it was rape.[106]
Other scholars, however, suggest that Bathsheba came to David willingly. James B. Jordan notes that the text does not describe Bathsheba's protest, as it does Tamar's in 2 Samuel 13, and argues that this silence indicates that "Bathsheba willingly cooperated with David in adultery".[107] George Nicol goes even further and suggests that "Bathsheba's action of bathing in such close proximity to the royal palace was deliberately provocative".[108]
2 Samuel 12 and 16 >>19239286
berliner $lide$
tendie gate framed jfk too
damn kulaks
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>>19239400
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>>19239430
>Jew
>>19239444
>Jew
>Jew
>>19239467
>Jew
>>19239473
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>Jew
>>19239681
>>>>>>>19239604
>>>>>>>Epstein-Ass
>>>>>>>19239588
>>>>>>>Child Sex Trafficking
>>>>>>>>19239104
>>>>>>>19239569
>>>>>>>RUMP WAR ROO
>>>>>>>19239569
>>>>>>>RUMP WAR ROO
>>>>>>>19239569
>>>>>>>RUMP WAR ROO
>>>>>>>19239534
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jew<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>^child sex trafficking RUMP WAR ROO Epstein-Ass
>>19239720
>>>>>>>>>>19239604
>>>>>>>>>>Epstein-Ass
>>>>>>>>>>19239588
>>>>>>>>>>Child Sex Trafficking
>>>>>>>>>>>19239104
>>>>>>>>>>19239569
>>>>>>>>>>RUMP WAR ROO
>>>>>>>>>>19239569
>>>>>>>>>>RUMP WAR ROO
>>>>>>>>>>19239569
>>>>>>>>>>RUMP WAR ROO
>>>>>>>>>>19239534
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jew<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>^child sex trafficking RUMP WAR ROO Epstein-Ass
>stolen rump tears
heads or tails ?
both faggots fishin fo glee
pressure fried salty ju batterd racist bigot pedo
dant fag kunt rally polka brah