I read this: http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/how-could-the-bible-command-a-rape-victim-to-marry-her-rapist/ Struggling to understand this. This did not mean that she had to be actively involved in every aspect of the rapist's life, just the funding and support?
I just want to follow up and say the CRI article is weak on this subject and fails to adequately cover the meaning of the underlying words which do not mean rape at all. Here's a better one: https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm This is why I do not rely solely on one source for information. Websites, no matter how visible or prolific they may be, are sometimes weak in one area while others are much stronger, depending on the subject.
My friend I am sure you knew not to rely on some one website’s claims... every school child knows this from day one Then why even countenance it? Could it that you were overly scrupulous and always looking for disproofs and this one sent you into a panic, which you yourself caught just a brief time later...? Struggles with anxiety can lead one to lend excessive credibility to things that actually make no sense!
Having read through the whole of the article she found for us, I am inclined to think that her skepticism regarding the first article was well founded and her diligent research paid off, both for her and for those of us who have read the entirety of what she eventually 'dug up'. Thank you @BibleHoarder , the insightful article was very enlightening. I just wish more of Christ's disciples were as diligent in their search for truth in the scriptures, rather than unquestioningly accepting whatever they read in an English translation, assuming they have 'all knowledge' instead of their knowledge being 'only partial'. 1 Cor.13:9-10. You have enabled my knowledge to be a little less 'partial' and a little more comprehensive. In a patriarchal economy, daughters were quite literally regarded as the 'property' of their father. Just as livestock and everything else they 'owned', that others were forbidden to 'covet'. Ex.20:17, Deut.5:21.
My main problem with CRI is that their articles are all over the place, and some even contradict each other in matters they try to defend or do a poor job in doing anything at all. Hank Hanegraaf is a big name in Christian apologetics but he is not infallible. William Lane Craig is not infallible, and I am really disturbed by modern apologists like JP Holding who have produced some really questionable takes and information on many controversial topics. Holding seems to have matured out of his previous persona, but his origins as an apologist on the largely dead TheologyWeb were rather unpleasant. Several of his colleagues who have stayed closed to him have also produced material on the same level as he. Many of the younger generation of apologists are promising in some ways but subscribe to hipster and internet propaganda. Some apologetics on the internet that is almost 20 years older (like Christianthinktank) is more reliable and well researched than what we're getting from the new generation. Their views are often toxic by injecting liberal heresies into otherwise sound material. Denial of biblical inerrancy is often accepted and excused with weak answers from people who do not understand many technical aspects of ancient literature, such as how Jews quoted prophecy in the NT, but the complexity behind it makes sense as to why these mistakes so often occur. Still, we need to be careful. I wasted two hours of my life on the Harris vs. Craig debate and got absolutely nothing out of it. William Lane Craig was generally looked at as some kind of infallible God on TheologyWeb and I see some new generation apologists who look to him as the Messiah, but even he has many weak points. I had as many problems with the way Craig expressed his ideas in that debate as I did with Harris. This is important to point out because Harris was critical of the OT laws in that debate. One of the websites that weaned me up as a Christian during my teen years was John N. Clayton's Does God Exist? That publication had many good points and insights from a man who grew up during the years when prayer was removed in school, but I have disagreed with many things he has said and often felt some of their views were poorly articulated or vague. Again, this is why we need multiple resources, not just one. I have seen Catholics who could defend their doctrines and views much better than anything Catholic Answers can put out, and atheists who probably despise Harris and Dawkins as much as we do. I know a few of them.