This is clever, very misleading/inaccurate. And people who actually understand the Bible see through this.
Few of the situations above were instructed by the bible -- its just how people lived then. Its like saying that because there is robbery in Canada, Canadians support robbery.
Man + Woman -- needs no explanation.
Man + Brother's widow -- Women received no inheritance in these times. Women were absolute property in society. A widow would be destitute. Marriage actually had a contract and it ensured the care and provision for the woman. This was a loving provision to a helpless widow and her children. It is unclear whether sexual relations were assumed. With this exception -- the Bible never tells a man to take more than one wife and never tells him to take a concubine.
Man + Wife + Concubines -- notice that there is no Bible references there, because this was a practice, but not one supported by scriptural law. Inaccurate.
Rapist and his victim -- admittedly, this is troubling to read. But the victim in that society would have been shunned by everyone, including her family and would be unworthy of future marriage. So the rapist would be required to marry for life -- and the rapist would be financially responsible for the woman for the rest of her life. Perhaps this would make someone think twice, because the marriage contract would be in place, but lets face it -- rape is never made okay in any sense. This was seen as a provision to the victim.
Man + Woman + Property... this is not a command about marriage. This was an isolated situation in one family and dont know what the women were thinking regarding relations to Abram. In fact much of history turns on this mistake! its not like a woman's slaves were fair game to men under the Law. The text of the graphic makes no sense.
Male Soldier + Prisoner of war -- once again, very hard to understand how God was working with primitive man. But there is the theme through the Old Testament that foreign women used their attractiveness to encourage men to follow their native customs. It was almost the downfall of Solomon. And here, the command was to kill everyone, but save the virgin women -- as slaves, or the typical spoils of war. I read nothing about these virgins being anything other than collected. Of course, the other option is that they would have been killed like the men/boys. Again, the few times in early man where God order annihilation, I can't explain. Was it like Hiroshima? We wiped out man woman and child and the war ended. we thought it justifiable. Did God think it was justifiable -- because even without internet or newspapers -- word would have traveled and no one would have wanted to mess with the hebrews... I can't explain it. Regarding the Deuteronomy reference -- its an odd one, but it does NOT say that wives must submit sexually to their new owners. It says that the soldier can capture a woman and make her his wife... The text is inaccurate.
Man + Woman + Woman... No Bible command...but people did it. misleading.
Male Slave and Female slave... Slavery was a way of life back then -- regarding occupation of armies, people in debt and selling themselves into slavery, etc. But in the Bible -- the slave became free in the 8th year. It was the year of jubilee. So the question of this passage is not of command as this suggests. It is that if a slave owner gives a slave a wife (did not say that he or she did not ask for that situation) what happens when the man is free at jubilee? Can he leave with is wife and kids? Nope, they need to hang around until their jubilee. text is very inaccurate.
Please give the infographic a rest. Do we have to lie to make our point?
[p]
= new reply since forum marked as read
