Rape in Deuteronomy

[YourGodsanAss]

I've been to alot of atheist sites lately to look for information on the evils of the old testament. I often see Deuteronomy 23:22-30 cited as saying

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

and

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

However, when I look in my KJ bible, it doesn't mention rape at all. It seems like these are punishments for affairs/ unwed relations. Perhaps there is something hidden in the translation? I've seen the great Mr. Dillahunty mention these verses on youtube (here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYqDCnB-vMM) but can't see where he gets the idea these verses are talking about rape.

Thanks!!

[DjVortex]

See this for an alternative view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bso69_yxppU

[dobbie]

I belong to the camp that believes the passage means "take by force." Others belong to the camp that believes it connotes "mutual consent."

Thus for one camp, a man rapes a woman or girl. For the other camp, she entices him.

Dueteronomy 22:28 If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Bible editions are divided about the meaning. Some editions denote rape while others strongly suggest mutual consent.

So, yes, it’s ambiguous really, no guarantee it’s to do with rape. Perhaps Bible debunkers, such as me, should steer clear of the passage.

[Lausten]

The primary problem with the OP seems to be the wrong chapter. It sites Deuteronomy 23 but then talks about Deuteronomy 22. Clearly in 22, the use of "lie with" in the KJV is used and that is commonly considered sex.

I did once hear Robert Price talk about the passage where Lot gives up his daughters to the people in Sodom so that they may "know her". He says that this translation is a bit more dicey and may or may not be about sex. The NIV however translates it to "have sex with him". Price was talking about which translation was better and cited this as a reason that the NIV is worse. But I've never heard anyone say that "lie with" has any other meaning.