Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Christians who oppose “gay marriage” because it isn't "Biblical marriage"... (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  also (3+ / 0-)

    The man wasn't condemned for turning the concubine over but the husband got the rest of Israel together to demand tha the men who raped his concubine to death be brought out and put to death. Also I don't recall him beating his concubine.  Now it was obvious in the story that she didn't want to be his concubine,  but the story makes no mention of abus on his part. That comes from the street gang in the city they stopped in.

    •  Thanks for clarifying this. (0+ / 0-)

      Sirenus's version was rank misrepresentation.

      •  The word "husband" is used in revised versions. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        In earlier versions, the word is "master."

        And it was the master who sent the concubine out to be raped and abused. The house owner's daughter stayed inside.

        They let her go at daybreak, and she made it back to the house; you have to wonder if she knocked on the door ad begged to be let in.

        Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

        by Sirenus on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:07:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Really? Go read the story. (0+ / 0-)

        The Bible says that the woman was unfaithful. That usually means a lover, right?

        She did run away.

        Yes, she ran to her father. Yes, on the way home, they were taken in by a householder. Yes, the householder offered his virgin daughter as well to the mob. Excuse me if I decided not to write an extra two hundred words to explain all this.

        But the virgin daughter was never shoved out the door. The concubine was.

        And was raped all through the night.  

        They let her go at daybreak. She made it back to the house. Her master--the word used in earlier versions of the Bible, because a concubine is not a wife, she is a piece of property--is described as opening the door to "go on his way"--note that he's not going to bother to try to find her and help her--and almost falling over her.  He speaks to her; she does not answer. Note also that it's never said that she's dead.

        He loads her on a donkey takes her home, cuts her into twelve pieces--let's hope she was dead by then!-- and sensd those pieces to the twelve tribes.

        So exactly how is my version "rank misrepresentation?"

        Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

        by Sirenus on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:30:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  These parts: (0+ / 0-)
          her owner, who lied and said that he'd not hurt her if she came back to him. She did and after viciously beating her, he turned her over to a mob to be gang-raped for an entire night. Then cut her into twelve pieces and sent a piece to each of the twelve tribes of Israel as a warning to other concubines.
          He didn't lie.  He didn't beat her.  He didn't turn her over to the mob; the householder did.  It wasn't a warning to other concubines; it was a condemnation of the Benjaminites who raped and murdered her, and a means of rallying the rest of the country to rise against them.

          So, yeah.  Misrepresentation.  Not saying this guy was innocent of any wrongdoing, but you got your facts wrong.

          Incidentally:  the Hebrew word for 'husband' is the same as the word for 'master'.  (Guess what?  So is the English word for 'husband'; the only reason we don't all know that is that the English usage of the word in the sense of 'master' is now archaic and obsolete.)  It is used for both a man who keeps a concubine and a man who weds a wife.  Both translations are equally accurate.

          •  Really? Maybe you need to read the story again. (0+ / 0-)

            The story is about a Levite and his concubine.  

            So who shoved her out to the mob?  Not the householder!

            "But they wouldn't listen to him. So the Levite took hold of his concubine and pushed her out the door. The men of the town abused her all night, taking turns raping her until morning. Finally, at dawn they let her go."

            And you can spout all you want about this man's oh so pious intentions. I'm actually reading the story. Very carefully. With, yes, an entirely different mindset. Of a woman seeing how another woman was treated.
            Screw all the religious crap.

            She got back to the house at dawn. Collapsed on the threshold .Is  described as "lifting her hands towards the door. Quite possibly still alive at that point. Was he waiting with the door cracked, hoping she could make it back?

            Hell, no.
            "When her master got up in the morning"--no problem sleeping, I see--" and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way-- not even going take a few minutes to check if she's still alive somewhere?-- "there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold."

            Does he pick her up? Does he call for the householder to help? To fetch a physician? Don't make me laugh.

            "He said to her, "Get up and let us go," but there was no answer. Then he placed her on the donkey; and the man arose and went to his home."

            And when he gets her home, is there a funeral?  A grave? Any sign of respect?  Again, hell no! Just chop her up like a dead ewe and send pieces of her to al the tribes! Couldn't send a letter, or a messenger. So much easier and so much more dramatic to send chunks of raw meat.

            So....howls of outrage all around. 9/11! 9/11!!  A great excuse for a full-blown war. Because one woman got killed? Or because his property was destroyed?

            Because, at the end of another dozen verses full of slaughter, the lives of women who never lifted a sword against the Israelites really don't matter.

            "So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children."

            What brave men! What heroes! One concubine, tossed out to a mob by her owner to save his own neck. He obviously didn't think it a big deal. Until he got the idea that  chopping her up and sending out fly-blown chunks of her was a great way to stir things up.  

            Maybe you read that and find it heroic. I read it and want to puke.  

            Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

            by Sirenus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:29:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whose comment are you responding to? (0+ / 0-)

              In what language does "Not saying this guy was innocent of any wrongdoing, but you got your facts wrong" translate to "His actions were pious and heroic and you are wrong for condemning him"?

              "The Levite took hold of his concubine" -- I had to look at   a list of translations to find out where you got "the Levite" there.  The original Hebrew says "the man" -- vayachazek ha-ish, not vayachazek ha-Levi.  Your translation interpolates "the Levite" to tell you what that translator decided was the correct solution to the ambiguity in the text, which does not tell us which man did it.

              What does anything else you said have to do with any of the other points I bolded in my comment above?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site