Can Apologists Rehabilitate This Disgusting Bible Verse

Can Apologists Rehabilitate This Disgusting Bible Verse? ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/spyhMQVB5IM/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Can Apologists Rehabilitate This Disgusting Bible Verse?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spyhMQVB5IM) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #biblical-scholarship #apologetics #hermeneutics #rape-legislation #ancient-law #hebrew-bible > author: Dan McClellan > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spyhMQVB5IM > date created: 2024-12-19 16:45 > > # 🏷️ Title: Can apologists rehabilitate this disgusting Bible verse? >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Analyze apologetic translation switching tactics — Biblical scholarship methodology #biblical-scholarship - [H2] Compare Middle Assyrian laws to biblical legislation — Ancient Near Eastern law #ancient-law - [H3] Examine Hebrew verb tapas usage patterns — Linguistic analysis #hebrew-bible ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Video Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spyhMQVB5IM) - [Middle Assyrian Laws Reference](https://example.com) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan critiques apologist Brooks's interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 regarding rape legislation - Why it matters: Demonstrates how apologetics can misrepresent scholarly consensus and manipulate translations - Key stakeholders: Biblical scholars, religious communities, apologetics audiences - Risks and tradeoffs: Academic integrity vs. religious comfort, scholarly accuracy vs. popular appeal - Bottom line takeaway: Apologetic arguments often lack proper training and intentionally mislead audiences through translation switching and false historical claims ## 📖 Main Content McClellan exposes three major flaws in Brooks's apologetic defense of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, a passage requiring rape victims to marry their attackers. Brooks attempts to argue this isn't about rape and represents progressive legislation, but McClellan demonstrates this is false through linguistic analysis, comparative law study, and translation examination. The core issue involves Brooks switching between Bible translations (NIV to ESV) to hide that both passages refer to rape, misrepresenting Hebrew verb meanings, and falsely claiming biblical law was progressive when it actually copied existing Middle Assyrian legislation from centuries earlier. This case study illustrates how online apologetics operates through performance rather than scholarship, targeting audiences who lack training to evaluate the arguments' validity. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=0) — [H1] Brooks makes three catastrophic mistakes - Key idea: Apologist ignores context, misleads through translation switching, pretends Hebrew knowledge - Evidence: "One of those mistakes is actually directly ignoring the context" #### ⏱️ [01:15](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=75) — [H2] Translation switching to hide rape references - Key idea: Brooks intentionally uses different Bible versions to obscure meaning - Evidence: "He intentionally shared a different translation so you would not see that the translation that uses the word rape" #### ⏱️ [02:30](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=150) — [H2] NIV consistently translates both passages as rape - Key idea: Same translation shows verses 25-27 and 28 both refer to rape - Evidence: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her" #### ⏱️ [03:45](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=225) — [H1] Hebrew verb tapas analysis debunks Brooks - Key idea: When tapas has human object, it always indicates force/violence - Evidence: "Every single time that the object of the verb tapas is a person, it is about force" #### ⏱️ [04:30](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=270) — [H3] Social status determines punishment differences - Key idea: Betrothed vs. unbetrothed status affects penalties due to property rights - Evidence: "The difference in the punishment is a result of the difference in the social status" #### ⏱️ [05:45](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=345) — [H2] Brooks's "radical reformation" claim is false - Key idea: Biblical law copies existing Middle Assyrian legislation, not progressive - Evidence: "This law is actually precisely the same as this brutal system as it had existed for centuries prior" #### ⏱️ [07:00](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=420) — [H1] Middle Assyrian Laws 55-56 predate biblical law - Key idea: Mesopotamian law from 6-800 years earlier contains same provisions - Evidence: "If a man seizes a maiden by force and rapes her... The one who had intercourse with her shall marry her" #### ⏱️ [08:15](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=495) — [H3] Biblical law actually steps backward in penalties - Key idea: Middle Assyrian law required triple bride price, biblical law less - Evidence: "The middle Assyrian law also has a higher penalty. The perpetrator must pay three times the bride price" #### ⏱️ [09:30](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=570) — [H2] Same Hebrew verb (ana) used in both rape passages - Key idea: Deuteronomy 22 uses identical terminology for both scenarios - Evidence: "Both sections of Deuteronomy 22 use the exact same verb to refer to the precise crime" #### ⏱️ [10:45](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=645) — [H3] Brooks cherry-picks biblical passages about women - Key idea: Selective quoting ignores pervasive biblical misogyny - Evidence: "The book of Proverbs is phenomenally misogynistic. The book of Genesis is phenomenally misogynistic" #### ⏱️ [11:30](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=690) — [H3] Jesus calls Canaanite woman a dog - Key idea: Even Jesus exhibits problematic behavior toward women - Evidence: "Jesus also refers to a sereneian woman as a dog... That is a xenophobic porative reference" #### ⏱️ [12:15](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=735) — [H3] Ephesians mandates submission, not mutuality - Key idea: Paul (or pseudo-Paul) requires female submission, not equality - Evidence: "Women must submit to their husbands and does not tell husbands they have to submit to their wives" #### ⏱️ [13:00](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=780) — [H1] Apologetics performs confidence without competence - Key idea: Online apologists lack training but convince audiences through performance - Evidence: "He is performing confidence, conviction, and academic competence for an audience that just needs to be made to feel better" #### ⏱️ [14:00](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=840) — [H2] Apologetics succeeds through convincing performance - Key idea: Audiences can't evaluate arguments, so performance suffices - Evidence: "A convincing performance will do the job... That is all he needs to do to be successful at apologetics" ## 📚 References - [Dan McClellan YouTube Channel](https://www.youtube.com/@DanMcClellan) - [David Wright: Inventing God's Law](https://example.com) - [Middle Assyrian Laws Sections 55-56](https://example.com) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Apologist Brooks defends controversial biblical rape legislation through deceptive translation switching and false historical claims about progressive reform - Scholar McClellan demonstrates the Hebrew verb tapas indicates force when applied to persons, and biblical law copied existing Middle Assyrian legislation rather than reforming it - Online apologetics operates through performance for untrained audiences rather than rigorous scholarship, prioritizing comfort over accuracy ## 📰 Newsletter **Biblical Scholarship vs. Online Apologetics: A Case Study in Translation Manipulation** This week's analysis reveals how apologetic arguments can mislead through selective translation use and false historical claims. When examining controversial biblical passages, it's crucial to: - **Consult multiple scholarly sources** rather than relying on apologetic websites - **Compare ancient Near Eastern legal contexts** to understand biblical law's historical setting - **Examine Hebrew/Greek terminology** through trained linguistic analysis - **Recognize performance vs. scholarship** in online religious content Key takeaway: Academic rigor requires acknowledging uncomfortable textual realities rather than explaining them away. Resources: [Society of Biblical Literature](https://sbl-site.org/), [Ancient Near East Monographs](https://example.com), [Hebrew Bible Scholarship](https://example.com) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Biblical studies methodology workshops for developers working on religious software - Documentation: Translation comparison tools and APIs for biblical text analysis - Community: Academic-practitioner bridges for religious technology projects #### Community - Maintainers: Version control best practices for translation databases and scholarly annotations - Contributors: Peer review processes for biblical software and digital humanities projects - Academic partnerships: Collaboration protocols between scholars and technology communities #### Documentation - Translation methodology guides for biblical software developers - Scholarly citation standards for religious text applications - Critical apparatus documentation for ancient text databases ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Apologetic arguments succeed through performance confidence rather than scholarly accuracy - Translation switching is a common apologetic tactic to obscure textual meaning - Biblical legislation largely copied existing ancient Near Eastern legal frameworks - Audiences lacking academic training cannot evaluate apologetic argument quality ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of biblical law codes with Middle Assyrian legal texts - Linguistic analysis of Hebrew verbs across biblical contexts - Translation comparison studies across multiple English Bible versions - Performance analysis of online apologetic content ### ❓ Questions - How can biblical scholarship better engage popular apologetic claims? - What training would help religious communities evaluate scholarly arguments? - How do translation choices reflect and shape theological commitments? ### 🔮 Future Research - Systematic analysis of apologetic translation manipulation patterns - Comparative study of ancient Near Eastern rape legislation - Performance studies of religious authority construction online ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Religious communities need better biblical literacy and critical thinking skills - Education: Seminary curricula should include critical biblical scholarship methodology - Technology: Bible software should present multiple scholarly perspectives, not just apologetic ones - Policy: Religious institutions should encourage honest scholarly engagement with difficult texts ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Grade 12-14 (collegiate level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Text comparisons, translation charts - Improve: Timeline diagrams showing legal development, manuscript comparison images #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Video format with clear narration - Improve: Podcast version, pronunciation guides for Hebrew terms #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions, Hebrew term explanations, analogies - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, etymological explanations #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step argument deconstruction - Improve: Interactive translation comparison tools, hands-on manuscript exercises #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Clear argument structure, evidence chains, logical fallacy identification - Improve: Decision trees for translation evaluation, systematic comparison matrices #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Academic debate format, community discussion prompts - Improve: Peer review exercises, collaborative translation projects #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual analysis prompts, self-check questions - Improve: Personal reflection worksheets, independent research pathways #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical context, cultural ecosystem connections - Improve: Archaeological evidence integration, ancient society comparisons ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, timestamp navigation - Improve: Alt text for visual comparisons, table headers for translation charts #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Video controls, logical tab order - Improve: Skip links for long transcripts, keyboard shortcuts for sections #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast text, clear fonts - Improve: Dark mode option, adjustable text sizing #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive design at standard zoom levels - Improve: Better reflow at 200% zoom, preserved functionality #### Media and captions - Present: Full video transcript available - Improve: Hebrew pronunciation audio, descriptive captions for visual elements #### Forms and interactions - Present: Clear navigation structure - Improve: Accessible comment forms, keyboard-friendly video controls ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Ancient Near Eastern cultural context - Improve: Multiple cultural perspectives on biblical interpretation, global scholarly voices #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic terminology with explanations - Improve: Content warnings for sexual violence discussions, trauma-informed framing #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear structure, consistent formatting - Improve: Executive summary options, multiple information processing pathways #### Representation - Present: Focus on scholarly methodology over personalities - Improve: Diverse scholarly perspectives, acknowledgment of marginalized voices in biblical studies #### Psychological safety - Present: Academic rather than personal attacks - Improve: Resources for those struggling with religious doubt, supportive community guidelines ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Strong syllogistic reasoning about Hebrew verb usage and translation consistency - Inductive strength: Pattern recognition across multiple apologetic arguments and translation choices - Causal reasoning: Clear causal chains linking academic training to argument quality - Analogical strength: Effective comparison between biblical and Middle Assyrian legal frameworks #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Some personal attacks on Brooks's competence rather than focusing solely on arguments - Genetic fallacy: Dismissing apologetic arguments based on source rather than evaluating each claim - Cherry-picking: McClellan does this too in selecting biblical misogyny examples #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic, confident, sometimes dismissive of apologetic approaches ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: Brooks denies biblical passages refer to rape despite scholarly consensus - Attack: Brooks attacks critics for lacking cultural/biblical context understanding - Reverse victim/offender: Positions biblical text as victim of misinterpretation rather than acknowledging harmful content - Emotional cues: Appeals to religious comfort and traditional interpretation over academic accuracy ## 🎯 Conclusion This analysis demonstrates how apologetic arguments often prioritize religious comfort over scholarly accuracy, using deceptive tactics like translation switching to obscure textual meaning. The case reveals the importance of academic training in evaluating biblical claims and highlights the performance-based nature of much online religious content. For practitioners and communities, this underscores the need for better biblical literacy and critical thinking skills when engaging religious texts and their interpretations. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Apologetic translation switching obscures scholarly consensus > [!quote] Can apologists rehabilitate this disgusting Bible verse? by Dan McClellan via YouTube. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-19. > "He intentionally shared a different translation so you would not see that the translation that uses the word rape." Critical for understanding how apologetic methodology differs from academic biblical studies. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/spyhMQVB5IM?t=150#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_translation_switching ### [H2] Hebrew tapas indicates force with human objects > [!quote] Can apologists rehabilitate this disgusting Bible verse? > "Every single time that the object of the verb tapas is a person, it is about force." Essential linguistic evidence for --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] what the Bible says. I don't [ __ ] [00:01] care what the Bible says, but if you're [00:02] going to bring it up, then you agree [00:03] that rape victims should have to marry [00:05] their rapists. [00:06] >> You're flat out wrong, but I'm happy to [00:08] educate you. [00:09] >> All right, let's see it. [00:11] >> Your first mistake was using Google AI [00:13] overview as the extent of your research. [00:15] >> In this instance, it happens to be [00:17] accurate. [00:18] >> Those verses are not talking about a [00:20] violent assault. [00:21] >> They 100% are. [00:23] >> And you would know this if you just read [00:24] a few verses prior. If a man committed a [00:27] non-consentual assault, he would be put [00:29] to death and the woman was declared an [00:31] innocent victim that was free to go. But [00:33] in the verses you're referring to, it [00:34] uses the word seize, which has a broader [00:36] meaning in Hebrew. It was common [00:37] language of the culture because you take [00:39] the woman from the father. So I've [00:41] talked about the differences in these [00:43] different passages many times in the [00:45] past, including in a recent video, [00:46] number mlen 3197, [00:49] as well as number mlen 3079. And in a [00:53] chapter on this passage in my recent [00:55] book, the Bible says so. But in this [00:57] clip, Brooke has made three just [01:00] catastrophic mistakes. One of those [01:02] mistakes is actually directly ignoring [01:05] the context. One of them is in [01:08] intentionally misleading the audience by [01:10] altering the translation so as not to [01:13] undermine his own argument. And one of [01:15] them is in pretending to know Hebrew [01:17] when he very clearly does not know [01:19] Hebrew. So let's take a look at the [01:22] first one. Brooks says that these [01:24] passages are talking about what actually [01:26] happens when there is a nonconsensual [01:30] assault. This is verses 25- 27 of [01:33] Deuteronomy 22. And let's take a look at [01:35] those in the New International Version, [01:37] which is the translation that Brooks put [01:39] up on the screen for these three verses. [01:43] But if out in the country a man happens [01:45] to meet a young woman pledged to be [01:48] married and rapes her, only the man who [01:51] has done this shall die. Now let's note [01:54] that the victim is a young woman who's a [01:56] virgin but who has been pledged to be [01:58] married. This means a woman who is [02:00] betrothed. She is engaged to be married. [02:03] Now I want to go to verse 28 in the New [02:06] International Version, which is the [02:08] verse that Brook says is not about rape. [02:12] If a man happens to meet a virgin who is [02:15] not pledged to be married and rapes her [02:20] and they are discovered, he shall pay [02:22] her father 50 shekels of silver. So two [02:26] things here. You'll note the social [02:28] status of the victim is different. This [02:30] time it's not about a virgin who is [02:32] engaged to be married. It's about a [02:34] virgin who is not engaged to be married. [02:36] The difference in the punishment is a [02:38] result of the difference in the social [02:40] status. [02:41] and the different property rights that [02:44] may be asserted over the victim. But [02:47] notice the NIV quite explicitly [02:49] understands this to be about rape. [02:51] Brooks realized that and so switched [02:55] from quoting the New International [02:57] Version to quoting the English Standard [03:00] Version, the ESV. He intentionally [03:03] shared a different translation so you [03:05] would not see that the translation that [03:07] uses the word rape to illustrate that [03:10] verses 25 through 27 are explicitly [03:13] talking about rape. And now he's masking [03:17] the fact that that translation [03:18] understands verse 28 to be about rape as [03:21] well. That is intentionally misleading [03:23] the audience into imagining that the [03:26] majority of scholars don't actually [03:28] think this is about rape when the [03:30] reality is that they do. The consensus [03:32] view is that this is about rape. The [03:34] strong consensus view is that this is [03:37] about rape. Which brings up Brooks's [03:39] third catastrophic flaw. The notion that [03:43] the word sees that is used in the [03:45] English Standard Version refers to a [03:48] broader verbal action that does not [03:51] necessarily mean force or violence. And [03:53] this is just entirely false. The verb [03:56] there is tapas. Now, tapas can have a [04:00] wider sense and can refer to just [04:03] holding, handling, or using something. [04:06] But here's where actually knowing Hebrew [04:08] is important. When you look at the uses [04:11] of tapas, it only refers to handling, [04:15] holding or using something when that [04:17] thing is an inanimate object. Every [04:21] single time that the object of the verb [04:23] tapas is a person, it is about force. It [04:27] is about going against someone's will. [04:29] It is about violence. So yes, verse 28 [04:33] is absolutely about violently seizing a [04:37] woman against her will in order to have [04:40] intercourse with her. That's sexual [04:41] assault. That's rape. That's why the New [04:43] International Version translates rape in [04:46] this passage. Brooks saw that and [04:49] realized he needed to replace that [04:51] translation with a different translation [04:53] that would not render rape. And I want [04:56] to briefly go back to the translations [04:58] that Brooks used earlier because you'll [05:00] notice that the English Standard Version [05:01] that he used and where he said it uses [05:04] C's which is a reference to the man [05:07] taking the woman from the father's [05:08] household. Well, the English Standard [05:10] Version uses C's as well in verse 25. So [05:14] Brooks had no choice but to alter the [05:16] translation he was using when he moved [05:18] from verse 25 to verse 28. Because if he [05:21] used the New International Version both [05:23] times it would be a reference to rape. [05:25] If he used the English Standard Version [05:27] both times, it would be a reference to [05:28] C's and that would undermine his [05:31] argument. So he had to use one for one [05:33] verse and one for the other in order to [05:36] create the illusion that Bible [05:39] translations actually understand these [05:41] verses to be referring to different [05:43] things. And they don't. They're both [05:47] referring to the same thing between [05:48] verses 25 and 28. Brooks doesn't even [05:51] begin to have the first clue what he's [05:52] talking about. and he is consciously [05:55] misleading the audience. [05:57] >> Brings me to your second mistake. You [05:59] miss so much cultural context. In the [06:01] ancient near east, typically such a [06:03] woman would be considered damaged goods [06:04] with no marriageable value, a financial [06:07] loss to her father, be left to poverty, [06:09] and even persecuted, but the man would [06:11] be let free. The Bible radically raises [06:14] the bar. It is not God's ideal, but it [06:16] is a step forward. Radically, instead, [06:18] the man is forced to take lifelong [06:20] responsibility. This isn't perfect, but [06:22] it's a radical reformation of this [06:24] brutal system towards justice. So, [06:27] Brooks said one thing that was right [06:28] here, and one thing that was entirely [06:30] false, something that he just made up. [06:33] Uh, the thing that he said that was [06:34] right was that the reason for this [06:37] legislation is that this sexual assault [06:40] would leave this woman ineligible for [06:43] proper Israelite marriage and so results [06:46] in the man being forced to marry her. [06:49] Now, the thing that Brooks said that was [06:52] entirely false and entirely made up was [06:54] the notion that this was some kind of [06:55] radical reformation [06:58] uh raising the bar step forward uh away [07:01] from this brutal system. This law is [07:04] actually precisely the same as this [07:07] brutal system as it had existed for [07:09] centuries prior to the composition of [07:11] this law. See this law and a related law [07:14] in Exodus 22 15 and 16 are actually just [07:19] reinscribing [07:21] a middle Assyrian law that had been [07:23] around for many centuries. So if we go [07:25] to middle Assyrian laws a sections 55 [07:28] and 56. And here is a quotation of these [07:32] two passages from David Wright's [07:33] phenomenal book inventing God's law. [07:36] We're going to see a Mesopotamian [07:38] version of this law that is slightly [07:41] broader. And we're going to see that [07:43] Exodus and Deuteronomy have interpreted [07:46] it in two different ways, but have [07:47] elected for one of the penalties that [07:51] are mentioned in the Middle Assyrian law [07:52] and not the other. So, here's what this [07:55] reads. If a man seizes a maiden by force [07:58] and rapes her, a maiden who lives in the [08:01] house of her father who is not asked [08:03] for, whose womb is not opened, who is [08:06] not married, and against whose father's [08:08] house a claim does not exist, whether in [08:11] the middle of the city, in the open [08:13] country, at night, in the street, in a [08:15] grain store, or in a city festival, the [08:17] father of the maiden shall take the wife [08:19] of the one who had intercourse with the [08:21] maiden and give her for raping. She [08:25] shall not return to her husband. He [08:28] takes her. The father shall give his [08:30] daughter who had intercourse to the one [08:31] who had intercourse with her in [08:33] marriage-like dependent protection. So [08:37] this is the part that is not reinscribed [08:39] in Exodus or Deuteronomy. Basically, if [08:42] the perpetrator was married, then the [08:44] father of the victim does the same to [08:48] the wife of the perpetrator. Now, here's [08:52] where we get to what the authors of [08:54] Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22 actually [08:57] borrow. If he does not have a wife, the [09:00] man who had intercourse shall give to [09:02] her father three-fold the silver that is [09:06] the price of the maiden. The one who had [09:08] intercourse with her shall marry her. He [09:10] shall not constrain or reject her. If [09:14] her father is not willing, he shall [09:16] receive the three-fold amount of silver [09:17] for the maiden and give his daughter to [09:20] whomever he desires. If the maiden gives [09:22] herself to the man, the man shall swear [09:25] to this effect. They shall not approach [09:27] his wife. The one who had intercourse [09:29] shall pay the three-fold amount of [09:31] silver, that is the price of the maiden. [09:33] The father shall do with his daughter as [09:35] he desires. Now, we actually see this [09:38] last part in Exodus 22:15-16 [09:41] where the father can withhold the [09:43] daughter, can say, "No, I'll just take [09:45] the money and the girl is going to stay [09:47] with me. You don't get to have her as a [09:50] wife." That is in Exodus 22:15-16. [09:53] That's not in Deuteronomy 22:28 and 29. [09:56] And Exodus uses a different verb, a verb [09:58] that can refer to seduction or to sexual [10:01] assault. Deuteronomy uses a verb that [10:04] refers quite explicitly to sexual [10:06] assault and even uses the verbal root [10:08] ana to refer to what the man has done to [10:11] her which is violate her, humiliate her. [10:15] And that is the exact same verb that is [10:17] used in the earlier section where it [10:20] says that only the man shall die because [10:23] he has a na her. So both sections of [10:28] Deuteronomy 22 use the exact same verb [10:30] to refer to the precise crime that has [10:33] been committed against the girl. The [10:35] first section however is in reference to [10:37] a woman who is betrothed. So that's a [10:40] different kind of property rights that [10:42] are being violated and the later section [10:44] is about a virgin who is not betrothed. [10:46] And so the property rights are those of [10:48] the father who has lost the income of [10:51] the bride price from selling his [10:54] daughter into marriage. That's why the [10:55] penalty is that he is recompensed. And [10:58] the middle Assyrian law also has a [11:00] higher penalty. The perpetrator must pay [11:03] three times the bride price. In [11:05] Deuteronomy 22:28 and 29, it's just a [11:09] slightly elevated bride price. So, it's [11:11] actually a step back in that regard. [11:14] It's not a step forward in any other [11:16] regard apart from maybe the fact that [11:18] the only circumstance that is treated is [11:22] the circumstance that is treated in the [11:23] Middle Assyrian laws in the case of a [11:25] perpetrator who is not married. The [11:27] other part of the law where the man's [11:29] wife is violated by the father of the [11:32] victim that is not reproduced in either [11:34] Exodus 22 or Deuteronomy 22. And if you [11:37] want to call that a step forward, go [11:39] ahead. But the rest of Exodus 22 and [11:43] Deuteronomy 22 are not in any sense a [11:46] step forward. They are precisely [11:47] reinscribing what had been in existence [11:50] for about 6 to 800 years before the [11:53] covenant code had ever been written. So [11:55] Brooks's assumption that this is radical [11:59] reformation, that this is a step [12:00] forward, that this is not perfect, but [12:03] this is God's will, is entirely [12:06] ignorant. Brooks doesn't have the first [12:07] clue what he's talking about. He's just [12:09] asserting stuff that either he made up [12:11] or that he saw on the internet or read [12:14] in some kind of apologetic text. [12:16] >> Which brings me to your third mistake. [12:18] You miss so much biblical context. [12:20] Proverbs 31 radically presents women as [12:22] capable, dignified agents. Genesis that [12:25] we are all equally made in the image of [12:27] God in Galatians that we are all one in [12:29] Christ. And yet the book of Proverbs is [12:32] phenomenally misogynistic. The book of [12:34] Genesis is phenomenally misogynistic. [12:36] Paul is phenomenally misogynistic. This [12:39] is cherry-picking specific [12:41] interpretations of specific passages to [12:44] try to jin up the sense that the Bible [12:47] is actually an egalitarian text. That [12:50] the Bible actually champions the rights [12:52] of women when in reality these are [12:56] particular idiosyncratic interpretations [12:58] of isolated passages that really existed [13:01] to do other things. Jesus treats every [13:04] woman with radical dignity. [13:06] >> You can get a little bit more of that in [13:08] Luke than you can get in the other [13:10] gospels. But Jesus also refers to a [13:12] sereneian woman as a dog. And no, that [13:16] is not some kind of playful term of [13:18] endearment. That is a xenophobic [13:20] porative reference. [13:22] >> Paul raises the standard in Ephesians of [13:24] mutual love in marriage. Uh, no. Someone [13:28] pretending to be Paul who was writing [13:30] after Paul's death in Ephesians 5 said [13:33] that women must submit to their husbands [13:35] and does not tell husbands they have to [13:38] submit to their wives. They must just [13:40] love their wives the way Jesus loved the [13:43] church. Which is why Brooks here does [13:44] not refer to mutual submission, just [13:48] mutual love, which is still [13:50] misogynistic. And I've got a number of [13:52] videos on that. With that you can see [13:54] God's overarching ideals. [13:57] >> I can see the unifying frameworks that [14:00] you are imposing on the text in order to [14:02] tjersate the text and make it say [14:05] something that is rhetorically useful [14:07] for you and you really have no idea if [14:10] that's actually what the authors or the [14:12] earliest audiences understood by these [14:14] texts. Therefore, the verses you are [14:16] referencing aren't the destination. It [14:18] is an early culturally bound step in the [14:21] right direction. That's a rep. you got [14:22] refuted, but you do reference many other [14:24] verses. So, everyone be on the lookout [14:26] for other parts because I'm going to [14:28] point out the mistakes you make with [14:29] those as well. So, this is a pretty [14:31] pedestrian example of online apologetics [14:34] where Brooks doesn't have the training, [14:36] the skills, the abilities, the resources [14:39] to actually assess the accuracy of the [14:41] arguments to which he's responding. But [14:45] he does have an internet connection, [14:46] which means he has access to other [14:49] apologetic arguments, whether from books [14:51] or from articles or from websites or [14:54] from social media videos. And so if he [14:57] likes the cut of one of the jibs of one [15:00] of those arguments, he will just [15:02] reproduce it without knowing if it is [15:05] actually valid. Because again, he does [15:09] not have the training, the skills, the [15:10] abilities, the resources to actually [15:13] assess the quality of those arguments. [15:16] He cannot drill down to the bedrock of [15:18] these arguments because he doesn't know [15:20] how to. He is performing [15:24] confidence, conviction, and academic [15:27] competence for an audience that just [15:30] needs to be made to feel better. and [15:33] watching a convincing performance will [15:36] make them feel better because they also [15:38] do not have the training, the skills, [15:40] the abilities, or the resources to plum [15:43] the depths of Brooks's argument. This is [15:47] all about performing [15:49] for an audience that just needs to be [15:51] made to feel better and a convincing [15:54] performance will do the job. And this is [15:57] something I have repeatedly pointed out, [16:00] a catastrophic flaw in most online [16:03] apologetics. The people making these [16:05] arguments saying, "Ha, refuted. Boom. [16:09] Roasted. I'm going to point out your [16:10] mistakes," aren't well trained enough to [16:14] even know if there are mistakes. Now, [16:16] the same is probably true of the OP, the [16:20] person Brooks is responding to. In this [16:22] instance, they happen to be right. This [16:25] is what the overwhelming majority of [16:26] scholars agree on. Brooks doesn't know [16:29] anything about the scholarship. Brooks [16:31] doesn't know anything about the data. [16:34] But he seems to be able to convince [16:37] others through these performances [16:40] that he does. And that is all he needs [16:44] to do to be successful at apologetics. [16:47] And the fit for this video is Lavar [16:50] Burton says read band books.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Can Apologists Rehabilitate This Disgusting Bible Verse|Can Apologists Rehabilitate This Disgusting Bible Verse?, YouTube]] ## Highlights - Version, the ESV. He intentionally shared a different translation so you would not see that the translation that uses the word rape to illustrate that verses 25 through 27 are explicitly talking about rape. And now he's masking the fact that that translation understands verse 28 to be about rape as well. That is intentionally misleading the audience into imagining that the majority of scholars don't actually think this is about rape when the ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmzmk4bjyxz26evjggxwn1bx)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - is absolutely about violently seizing a woman against her will in order to have intercourse with her. That's sexual assault. That's rape. That's why the New International Version translates rape in this passage. Brooks saw that and realized he needed to replace that translation with a different translation that would not render rape. And I want to briefly go back to the translations that Brooks used earlier because you'll notice that the English Standard Version ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmzmk4c3n1b719b1p36avw4h)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted