Answering Apologetics Press and Dave Miller, Ph.D., on god killing children

This is my reply to an Apologetics Press article by Dr. Dave Miller, entitled

Did God Order the Killing of Babies?

by  Dave Miller,Ph.D.

 Skeptics and atheists have been critical of the Bible’s portrayal of God ordering the death of entire populations—including women and children.

Because the more infinite god is, the more options he has to solve sin problems without needing to inflict misery.  If limited sinners, can solve sin problems without mass slaughter, so can "god". 

Appeals to ripple-effect and chaos theory might help you save face, but foists not the least bit of intellectual obligation upon the person criticizing the bible's divine atrocities.  Hence appeal to such wishful speculations do not perform the function of making your fundamentalist position more reasonable than the position of a person who appeals to other dimensions to explain Bigfoot's uncanny ability to evade most attempts at detection.

For example, God instructed Saul through the prophet Samuel to “go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Samuel 15:3-4, emp. added). Other examples include the period of the Israelite conquest of Canaan in which God instructed the people to exterminate the Canaanite populations that occupied Palestine at the time. However, if one cares to examine the circumstances and assess the rationale, the Bible consistently exonerates itself by offering legitimate clarification and explanation to satisfy the honest searcher of truth.

Ok, where does the bible teach that a person of infinite power "didn't have any other way" to resolve a sin problem except to inflict horrific misery on children and infants?   When we bomb cities in war and cannot avoid killing a few innocent people, it's precisely because we are limited in our power and knowledge.  If we have infallible ability to pinpoint where the innocent civilians were and where the guilty enemy combatants were, we would be able to solve the war problem without killing innocent people.

You know, the excuse of imperfection that your infinite god cannot use.

The Hebrew term herem found, for instance, in Joshua 6:17, refers to the total dedication or giving over of the enemy to God as a sacrifice involving the extermination of the populace. It is alleged that the God of the Bible is as barbaric and cruel as any of the pagan gods. But this assessment is simply not true.
 If the critic would take the time to study the Bible and make an honest evaluation of the principles of God’s justice, wrath, and love,

Which the bible says he cannot do unless he first converts to your religion (1st Cor. 2:14), so you are asking of the critic that which your own theology says is impossible.  Sort of like me asking you to lift 5 tons above your head with no other means beyond your personal unaided biological muscular strength.

he would see the perfect and harmonious interplay between them.

That's funny...most Christian scholars don't believe in biblical inerrancy, which means not even most Christian scholars find your fundamentalist "reconciliation scenarios" too convincing.  That is, even if I became a Christian, god still might be telling me that the divine atrocities of the OT truly contradict the divine love preached by Jesus.

God’s vengeance is not like the impulsive, irrational, emotional outbursts of pagan deities or human beings.

Of course not.  For example, when he determined to murder Moses for no specific reason, the wife felt so constrained by the urgent death threat that she used something more dull than a knife, which happened to be nearby, to circumcise her son, the only apparent way God would back the fuck off:

 24 Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death.
 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me."
 26 So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood "-- because of the circumcision. (Exod. 4:24-26 NAU)

You will insist surely there was a reason God wanted to kill, even if the text doesn't express it, but on the contrary, God specifies that he can be incited to harm people "without cause":

 3 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause. (Job 2:3 NAU)

Miller continues:

He is infinite in all His attributes and thus perfect in justice, love, and anger.

Ok, you are a classical theist.  But Greg Boyd and other conservative Christian scholars reject classical theism and use the bible to substantiate the opposite doctrine of open-theism (i.e., God is limited and makes mistakes).  In other words, the only way I could allow your classical theist presuppositions is if I convert to Christianity and decide that the Christians who advocate for open-theism are wrong. 

Not likely.  In the text of Genesis 6:6-7, God's regret is not toward the sinfulness of man, even if that was historically true.  His regret is toward his own prior choice to have created man.  That is, god is sorry he created man and this means pretty much the same thing the parent means when saying they are sorry they ever chose to have kids.  In both cases, one's confession of personal imperfection is clear.  Hence I deny any bible verses that extol God's power and wisdom, and refuse to read such classical theist concepts into the biblical wording to make the bible agree with classical theism.  The bible's teaching about God's limitations and imperfections cannot be changed merely beaccuse other parts of the bible give a contrary picture.

Therefore I am reasonable to take god at his word, and accept his personal confession of imperfection as the truth about him...and therefore recognize the bible to be full of theological error.  As if 2,000 years of Christian theologians attacking each other didn't already do the job.

Just as God’s ultimate and final condemnation of sinners to eternal punishment will be just and appropriate,

Ok, you aren't challenging skeptics here, you are preaching to the choir.  Rock on.

so the temporal judgment of wicked people in the Old Testament was ethical and fair.

Gee, how easy is it to blindly accept God's perfection in one part of the bible, to justify the conclusion that "surely the judge of the earth will do right" to quell any problems with any other part of the bible?  Like I said, preaching to the choir.  What you say puts no intellectual compulsion on skeptics, nor highlights any logical fallacies in their criticism of the bible-god.

We human beings do not have an accurate handle on the gravity of sin and the deplorable nature of evil and wickedness.

Yes we do.  Those who trivialize the moral wrongness of sin aren't expressing any greater cavalier liberalism than God did when he got rid of David's two death-deserving sins of adultery and murder...by simply waiving his magic wand:

 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. (2 Sam. 12:13 NAU)

How high is God's standard of justice?  Put your diapers on!....He requires a whole entire RAM to be sacrificed when a master rapes a slave girl, and by that sacrifice, he forgives the rapist completely:

 20 'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.
 21 'He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering.
 22 'The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed will be forgiven him. (Lev. 19:20-22 NAU)

I therefore soil myself at the thought of the bible-god's infinitely high standard of justice.  Clearly, he thinks the person who steals a pack of bubble gum from the corner store has made themselves worthy of eternally irreversible conscious torture by fire.

Human sentimentality is hardly a qualified measuring stick for divine truth and spiritual reality.

Said the Muslim terrorist to the American mother of three kids.  When idiots get it in their head that their god wants them to commit some horrible act, they necessarily become immune to common sense.

How incredibly ironic that the atheist, the agnostic, the skeptic, and the liberal all attempt to stand in judgment upon the ethical behavior of God when, if one embraces their position, there is no such thing as an absolute, objective, authoritative standard by which to pronounce anything right or wrong.

We don't need any moral to be "absolute" or "objective" in order to remain "reasonable" to foist our subjective morals on others.  I am reasonable to conform to my culture's apathy toward racism, even if no absolute morals exist.  By conforming to my culture, I make my own life far more pleasant...while contradicting my culture's morals could easily lead to me landing in jail or otherwise making my life miserable.
Acting lawfully in effort to make life enjoyable, by definition, is reasonable. 

That logic will not disappear merely because you can carp "who was right, Mother Theresa or Hitler?"  The question blindly presumes there is a way to objectively determine who was right, which means the question is begging the question of the existence of objective morals, when whether they exist is precisely the debate.

As the French existentialist philosopher, Sartre, admitted: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist.... Nor...are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior” (1961, p. 485).

He was correct.  And due to the power of cultural and environmental conditioning, intelligent mammals are going to make changes in their lives that cause those who mostly agree on morals to band together in villages, cities, states, and nations. A whole bunch of people think raping a child is immoral, so it doesn't take a genius to figure out why such people choose to group together.  Yes, very often people are uneducated on moral philosophy and do indeed mistake their ultimately subjective morality for absolute morality, but thankfully, I'm not among them.

The atheist and agnostic have absolutely no platform on which to stand to make moral or ethical distinctions—except as the result of purely personal taste.

We don't need to ground our personal moral tastes in objective morality before our employment of those tastes to reach our desired goals can be reasonable and rational.

The mere fact that they concede the existence of objective evil is an unwitting concession there is a God Who has established an absolute framework of moral judgments.

Then you just encountered a rather extreme roadblock: I'm an atheist, I do not concede the existence of objective evil.  I am horrified at news that somebody slaughtered a schoolyard full of kids...but only because I was raised to adopt and reflect my culture's general morality...by parents who did the same.

Had I been born in 1915 in Germany, I might just as easily have taken the view that jewish kids "deserve" to be killed.  Now what are you going to do?  Find fault with a person for growing up to adopt their own culture's morals?  Ok, how about if I find "fault" with a man who grew up as a fundamentalist Christian and now thinks adultery is immoral?  Informed discussion about morality makes it clear that it is wrong to fault those who reflect the culture they were born and raised into.  We can disagree with them all day long, but we err in pretending the "American way" is "better".  We can't prove its' better except to shake our fist on Sunday and hear the claps of other people who already agree with us.  That doesn't prove the American way is objectively good.

The facts of the matter are that the Canaanites, whom God’s people were to destroy, were destroyed for their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12; Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28).

John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College) is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Graduate School.  He is author of The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites" (IVP Academic, 2017).  Therein he insists

Proposition # 12: The depiction of the Canaanites In Leviticus and Deuteronomy is a sophisticated appropriation of a common ANE literary device.  Not an Indictment.

In other words, on the basis of the case made by Walton and Sandy, my becoming a genuinely born again Christian AND graduating from a Christian college AND conducting extensive review of fundamentalist Christian treatments of the Canaanite problem could easily still leave me thinking the fundamentalist view is incorrect. 

Now if becoming spiritually alive doesn't do anything to help me correctly understand God's justice, I'm not going to think becoming spiritually alive is anything deeper or more significant than a description of a purely  naturalistic process.

Miller continues:

Canaanite culture and religion in the second millennium B.C. were polluted, corrupt, and perverted.

Sorry, you don't have any archaeological evidence that any of them ever practiced bestiality with anywhere near the consistency that fundamentalist apologist typically accuse them of.  Instead, you read the ancient and politically biased accounts by the Israelites, and automatically assume these are just as easily understood and reliable as yesterday's headline in the San Francisco Chronicle.

No doubt the people were physically diseased from their illicit behavior.

The fact that the Israelites were so easily swayed into such idolatry on nearly ever page of the Pentateuch tells me your argument about who 'deserved' to be slaughtered is superficial.  If God was correct to slaughter the Canaanites, then since the Israelites were no better, they "deserved" to be slaughtered likewise.

If God could live with the Israelites who were just as bad (James 2:10-11), he could have lived with the Canaanites.

There simply was no viable solution to their condition except destruction.

Then I apparently know your bible better than you.  God could have just waved his magic wand and convinced all Canaanites to do whatever he wanted them to do.  See Ezra 1:1.

Their moral depravity was “full” (Genesis 15:16).

Yup, you aren't addressing skeptics, you are only concerned with the readers who automatically conclude "historically reliable!" every time they read something in the bible.  Perhaps that explains why your arguments here give skeptics little reason to worry about anything except their next beer.

They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved state, with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be terminated—just like in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for years, but was unable to turn the world’s population from its wickedness (Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9).

Nope, Ezra 1:1, God has a non-barbaric way of turning people from the error of their way...therefore his choice to solve the problem in an unnecessarily barbaric way means nothing less than what's implied when a parent puts a bullet in their child's brain to make them stop disobeying.  The fact that the parent had other options, is all we need to be reasonable to conclude that parent is evil and guilty.  Telling us that God is always a special exception and his ways are mysterious, etc, cannot be viewed as plausible unless and until some hardcore undisputed evidence of his actual existence is brought forward, lest we  find ourselves doing nothing more than making excuses for story characters.  I'm an atheist.  You aren't going to be bringing in any evidence of god's actual existence.

Including the children in the destruction of such populations actually spared them from a worse condition—that of being reared to be as wicked as their parents and thus face eternal punishment.

Which is the precise argument I use to prove that abortion is morally good.  How could it be morally bad to send a child to heaven in a way that protects them from the possibility of ending up in hell?  Isn't the spiritual perspective (going to heaven) more important than the earthly perspective (unlawful to kill)?  When we remember the bible god takes credit for all murders anyway (Deuteronomy 32:29), then we can know it is God who is causing a woman to get an abortion.

So if God cannot do anything morally bad, then is it morally good when God employs his Deut. 32:39 power, yes or no?

When you say God can orchestrate our sinful acts for his own good purposes without himself thereby becoming guilty of sin, you are clearly desperate to grasp at any stupid trifle nobody in their right mind would ever grasp at, to avoid admitting the god of the OT is nothing but an accurate reflection of the barbaric culture that created him. There is no possible reasoning that can justify the argument that you encouraged a person to commit a criminal act, but you yourself bear no moral responsibility for the criminal act.  If older brother James encourages younger brother Dennis to steal a candy bar from a store, does James bear any moral responsibility for this crime, yes or no?

All persons who die in childhood, according to the Bible, are ushered to Paradise and will ultimately reside in Heaven.

Well in any moral analysis, where the result of the act is morally good, the act itself was morally good (i.e, healthy kids because you made them eat healthy food).

If the result of the moral act is morally good, you are a fool to say the act itself could nevertheless be immoral, since the good result is precisely the reason to say the act producing the good, was itself good.  How do you know feeding kids healthy food is morally good?  The result.  That's sufficiently objective to make it reasonable for moral relativists to feel their actions morally justified, even if absolute morals don't exist. You will say "this is merely 'the ends justify the means' !", but that doesn't bother me, as ends-justify-the-means is a rather popular moral justification.  If I'm starving, I won't just look at somebody else's food and perish away, I'll probably try to get some of it even if I know this is stealing.

Children who have parents who are evil must naturally suffer innocently while on Earth (e.g., Numbers 14:33).

But only because your god chose to refrain from waving his magic Ezra 1:1 wand and causing those evil parents to do whatever he wants.

Those who disagree with God’s annihilation of the wicked in the Old Testament have the same liberal attitude that has come to prevail in America just in the last half century. That attitude has typically opposed capital punishment, as well as the corporal punishment of children.

Then count me out.  I'm not  fundamentalist Christian, but I'm not a card carrying ACLU radical.

Such people simply cannot see the rightness of evildoers being punished by execution or physical pain.

Said the Muslim terrorist leader to his followers when talking about the moral goodness of killing Americans.

Nevertheless, their view is skewed—and the rest of us are being forced to live with the results of their warped thinking: undisciplined, out-of-control children are wreaking havoc on our society by perpetrating crime to historically, all-time high levels.

And like the parent who has the ability to control the kids without killing or brutalizing them, God just sits around refusing to exercise his Ezra 1:1 magic.  So God is like the wealthy parent watching their own kids starve, because dad refuses, solely by choice, to withdraw money from the bank to buy food.  When you have ability and opportunity to prevent your own created situation from spinning out of moral control, and you don't, the evil that occurs is YOUR fault whether others can be implicated too. 

God is no different than the mother with three toddlers who constantly chooses to never guide them, and just lets them run all over hell and back, then bitches about the fact that they exhibit the natural characteristics of unguided children.  Or like the mother who never guides her kids by anything more than words.  Sorry god, "words" are not enough, thus "the bible says..." is not enough to solve actual real world problems, even if it's enough to dazzle the delights of believers every Sunday.

Those who reject the ethics of God’s destructive activity in the Old Testament, to be consistent, must reject Jesus and the New Testament.

Nah, plenty of genuinely born again Christians have had severe probelms with the moral contradiction between the OT and NT.  I therefore reasonably deduce it is a real problem and not merely a case of somebody lacking spiritual insight.

Over and over again, Jesus and the New Testament writers endorsed and defended such activity (e.g., Luke 13:1-9; 12:5; 17:29-32; 10:12; Hebrews 10:26-31).

Yup, you aren't arguing to convince skeptics, but only to convince "bible-believers".  Dismissed.

The Bible provides the only logical, sensible, meaningful, consistent explanation regarding the principles of retribution, punishment, and the conditions under which physical life may be extinguished.

Yup.  We'd all cry if America's ghettos were nuked clean, but I'm sure you'd probably find a bible verses that says nuking the ghettos is the "only way" an infinite god of infinite powers could  possibly solve the problem.

my latest challenge to Matthew Flannagan

Readers of this blog will note that Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan, who makes such a big deal out of the "fallacy" of moral relativity, quietly and conveniently stopped responding to me after I started battering him with justifications for moral relativity.

I recently posted another challenge to him at another one of his blogs, see here.  In case that comment gets deleted, I'm preserving it below:

Barry Jones 11 minutes ago ·

Dr. Flannagan,

What do you believe is unreasonable about the person who uses your professed degree in contemporary analytic philosophy, and their reading of the book you co-authored with Paul Copan (i.e., "Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God", specifically the parts defending Wolterstorff's Appropriation Model and Speech Act Theory), that you live in sin (i.e., for many years into the past up to and including the present, you have been and always are intentionally seeking out opportunities to "wrangle words", the sin forbidden in 2nd Timothy 2:14)?

14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.(2 Tim. 2:14 NAU)

Is that verse so clear from its grammar and context that you can safely determine that the hair-splitting trifles of language you undeniably engage in, surely aren't what Paul was condemning in that verse?

If the atheist was forced to make a choice, which person should he view as more likely to engage in the sin of word-wrangling? The average Christian walking down the street? Or a Christian with a degree on contemporary analytic philosophy?

If you wish to insist that your ceaseless arguments with other people about the meaning of words and phrases ISN'T the type of "word-wrangling" that Paul was condemning in that verse, then please provide at least 3 different dialogue examples of the sort of arguing over the meaning of words, that you believe Paul meant the reader to understand in that verse. From the immediate context, it sure looks like Paul was condemning word-wrangling involving Christian doctrine.

What's Matt gonna do?  Wrangle with me over the proper meaning of "don't wrangle words"? LOL.

Does the bible require Christians to do apologetics?  Yes.  Does the bible allow them to do the type of apologetics that involves their wrangling of words?  No.  According to Titus 3:9-11, you don't have interactive dialogue with those who deny Paul's veracity.  You "warn" them twicej (warnings don't require dialogue), then you are to have nothing to do with them.

 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. (Tit. 3:9-11 NAU)

Apparently, Paul placed more restrictions on his followers, than what he allowed for himself.  Probably because he felt that apostles had more privileges than non-apostles, or had greater spiritual power so that apostles could play such games with people without being as subject to the temptations of the devil as non-apostles.  So I don't care if Paul himself wrangled words, that doesn't automatically imply he wanted his followers to imitate everything he did.  Common sense says what the NT directly commands of Christians in general is far more imposing on their conduct, than their more indirect argument that they are allowed to do just whatever they find the apostles doing.  Paul also enraged entire cities to the point of his being arrested.  Gee, does that mean Paul necessarily wanted his followers to enrage entire cities and get themselves arrested?  If you did that, you wouldn't be able to form churches and obey the stuff in the pastorals on church government.  The last comment in Acts about how the Romans soldiers allowed Paul to promote, during house arrest, the very things that got him arrested, is absolute fiction.

Yes, PristineKat, the bible DOES promote child-abuse and sexism

James Patrick Holding's followers are up to their usual blissful ignorance again.

PristineKat18 hours ago (edited)

@Logician_Bones Not surprising because he said he found Sunday school boring, so he never paid attention. Did I mention he’s biblically illiterate? Saying the Book condones “child beating” and “sexism towards women”.

See here.

Holding tries to protect his babies from my challenges, by deleting my posts, so here's how I responded to "PristineKat"

He isn't biblically illiterate. 

Child-beating is approved in Proverbs 22:15, the author says bruises from beatings cleanse away evil (20:30), Christian scholars admit the rule of "context" doesn't help much in the case of proverbs which are often strung together without relation to what follows or precedes ("each proverb is an independent unit that can stand alone and still have meaning. Textual context is not essential for interpretation", D.A. Garrett, New American Commentary, Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs, p. 38), which would mean you cannot use the judicial context of 20:30 to pretend v. 30 is restricted to judicial beatings of criminals.  Therefore it is reasonable to say the Proverbs author thought inflicting wounds on children when they disobey is good.

Since Josephus states the obvious in specifying the Israelites killed the women and children of the pagan nations, I'm going to find his commentary on the "massacre passages" more likely true than the stupid hair-splitting trifles of Copan and Flannagan....in which case the fact that the people who told you to beat your kids, were the type to also slaughter children over religious differences, makes it reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to say the author of Proverbs was advising what we today would call child abuse.  The fools who think "use a rod on your child" meant merely "tap them on the butt" are obviously ignorant of the social and cultural context Proverbs was written in.

As far as sexism toward women in the bible, it is reasonable for skeptics to conclude from Leviticus 19:20-22 that the reason the author makes an exception here to the death-penalty he required for adultery in the next chapter (20:10) is because the girl in 19:20-22 had lower social status as a slave (i.e., the author thinks adultery with a slave girl is less sinful than adultery with a free woman, i.e., misogyny).  And worse for you, the fact that Leviticus 19:20-22 neither expresses nor implies the girl has to do anything to atone for her sin, is because the author doesn't think the sex-act he is addressing was consensual (i.e., the man raped the slave-girl).  Even inerrantist Christian scholars admit this was likely a case of rape:

"Since she was still a slave, the guilty parties were not given the death penalty. Rather there was to be “due punishment”...It is worth noting that only the man was considered blameworthy, not the female slave. Being a slave, the woman may have felt she had little recourse in resisting a male who was a free man and thus more powerful both in the social and economic spheres. That the free man must bear responsibility is suggested by the fact the female slave was not required to bring the guilt offering sacrifice."  (Rooker, M. F. (2001, c2000). Vol. 3A: Leviticus (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 260). Nashville: Broadman & Holman)

Gee, how easy would it be to get rid of inerrantist Rooker's interpretation by calling him a black and white fundy?  Where did you learn that empty rhetoric gets you closer to biblical truth?  Peter Ruckman?

The rapist of Leviticus 19:20-22 only has to offer an animal sacrifice to the priests to have his sin forgiven...which isn't much different than limiting the punishment for rape to a "fine"...which means god thinks rape is nowhere near the big deal that today's neo-fundamentalist know-nothings think it is.

But if you carefully restrict your happy blissfully ignorant world to just tektonics and tekton tv, you do a fair job of protecting yourself from getting your teeth kicked out the back of your skull by skeptics who know their bibles better than you.  Whenever you feel like the Holy Spirit is in the mood to do what Jesus promised in Matthew 10:20, consider yourself challenged.  Goto

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/09/cold-case-christianity-why-would-god.html

and search for "Leviticus 19:20"

Maybe you could gain more from bible study if you knock off the ignorant zeal and exhibit genuine humility when you are actually ignorant of the biblical matter you speak about?

screenshot proving I posted this challenge to tekton tv

Rebuttal to Brian Chilton's interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Brian Chilton has posted an audio message to his blog trying to refute the "rape" interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.  See here.

 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.
 30 "A man shall not take his father's wife so that he will not uncover his father's skirt. (Deut. 22:28-30 NAU)

Chilton's motive is clear.  This passage is forcing the maiden to marry her sex partner.  If the passage is talking about "rape", then this makes God sound like a sadistic idiot.  Chilton is a Christian bible believer:  There is nothing bad about his god, end of story, have a nice day.  And that's all the presupposition he needs in order to become automatically suspicious of any bible passage that seems to imply God's morals are different than those held by modern-day Americans.

I'm a skeptic, and for the following reasons I'm "reasonable" to view Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to be addressing the issue of non-consensual sex or "rape".  I also challenge Chilton to a live in person or written debate on whether it is reasonable to classify the OT YHWH as  "good".

The following arguments are from a study I did years ago, and I will respond in a future post to Chilton's specific arguments.

(you need to remember that because reasonableness doesn't always demand correctness, you are not demonstrating this skeptical interpretation to be 'unreasonable' merely because you've proven that a different interpretation remains logically possible.  If you are going to uphold the negative inferences you always draw out of Psalm 14:1 and Romans 1:20, you must do more than show your view of Deut. 22:28-29 is possible, as "possible" isn't enough to show that the opposing view is unreasonable.  You must show that the skeptics who are interpreting Deut. 22:28-29 as addressing "rape" are "foolish" and "without excuse" for seeing rape therein).

First, commentators admit there is no agreement among commentators as to whether this passage addresses rape or merely "seduction": 

There is no agreement among commentators as to whether Deuteronomy 22:28–29 treats seduction (and is therefore an expansion of the case in Exod. 22:16–17) or rape. If the New International Version is correct in interpreting the passage as addressing rape, the monetary increase (fixed at fifty shekels) may be seen as a penalty exacted against the offender because he shamed her (v. 29). Whereas the former case (Exod. 22:16–17) would have been subject to conventional divorce procedure (Deut. 24:1–4), an additional provision is made for the woman’s economic security in the latter case: the man can never divorce her, whatever she does (Deut. 22:28–29). The concern for the woman is also reflected in the distinctions between the two rape cases described in Deuteronomy 22:23–27: the betrothed woman raped in the city would have been heard if she had cried for help, but the woman raped in the country is presumed to have cried out, whether she did or not. In the latter case, only the man is put to death.

Elwell, W. A., & Elwell, W. A. (1997, c1996). Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology (electronic ed.). Baker reference library; Logos Library System.

Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

This means there is a stark possibility that the passage is not sufficiently clear as to render the 'rape' interpretation unreasonable.  It might be sufficiently ambiguous as to allow either interpretation to be reasonable. Christian professor Joe Sprinkle highlights commentator uncertainty in his 1997 JETS article on the subject:

Similarly Deut 22:28–29 describes a case of what appears to be rape 8 in which the woman is subsequently given to the offender as wife (after a fifty-shekel marriage gift/fine to the father). In such a case the man “cannot divorce her as long as she lives.” Again, were it not for the original offense it would be assumed that he could divorce her.
---fn.8. The usual interpretation of “seize” (tāpas) is that the text implies that the man seizes the woman by force and rapes her. G. P. Hugenberger (Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi [VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994] 255-260), on the other hand, argues that Deut 22:28–29 is a case of seduction rather than rape. One argument in favor of the seduction view is the expression “they are found,” which suggests that both the man and the woman are involved, whereas in the case of rape one would expect it to say “he is found.” Another argument is that it seems unfair to force the woman to marry her rapist, whom she may well hate. Against Hugenberger, however, it seems hard to reconcile this being only a case of seduction with the extremely high bride price of fifty shekels, in contrast with Exod 22:16–17 where no such high price is set and no forfeiture of the right of divorce is mentioned.

Old Testament Perspectives On Divorce  And Remarriage, Joe M. Sprinkle

JETS 40/4 (December 1997) 533 

 * Joe Sprinkle is associate professor of Old Testament at Toccoa Falls College, P.O. Box 800236, Toccoa Falls, GA 30598–0236. 

The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 1998 (electronic edition.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Second, the fact that I'm reasonable to view Deut. 22:28-29 as talking about non-consensual sex is proven from the fact that even conservative Christian commentators, whose love for god gives them high motivation to avoid any "god is immoral" implication, nonetheless insist this passage is talking about rape.  E. H. Merrill is an inerrantist, and writes as follows for the inerrancy-driven New American Commentary.  IF there was any grammatical justification for him to avoid the "god is immoral" implication and restrict this passage to mere seduction, he likely would have.  He did not, he candidly admitted this was violent coercion:

22:28–29 At first glance the next example, the rape of an unbetrothed girl, might appear to have been a lesser offense than those already described, but this was not the case at all. First, he seized (Heb. tāpaś, “lay hold of”) her and then lay down (šākab) with her, a clear case of violent, coercive behavior.

Merrill, E. H. (2001, c1994). Vol. 4: Deuteronomy (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 305). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The NET bible (“Our passion is to see every person become mature in Christ and competent to teach and train others.”) makes the rape connotation in 22:28 explicit, which this team of Christian scholars would hardly have done had the grammar and context reasonably indicated the virgin was willing: 

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered.

The ESV makes the rape connotation explicit: 

Deu 22:28 Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes51 her and they are discovered.
Deu 22:29 The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives. 

The Brenton’s English translation of the Septuagint makes it clear this was rape: 

And if any one should find a young virgin who has not been betrothed, and should force her and lie with her, and be found, (Deut. 22:28 LXE)

ISBE agrees:

RAPE.
[חָזַק, chazak] = “to seize,” “bind,” “restrain,” “conquer, “force,” “ravish.” The punishment for this crime was greater when the act was committed against a betrothed woman (Deuteronomy 22:25-29).

Orr, J., M.A., D.D. (1999). The International standard Bible encyclopedia : 

1915 edition (J. Orr, Ed.). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

Third, “seize” in v. 28 in the Hebrew is taphas and means “to lay hold of, weild”, it is the same Hebrew word used in Deut. 21:19 to describe the way parents of a rebellious son force him in front of the elders to receive the death penalty; the same Hebrew word used in Deut. 20:19 to signify how the Hebrews will capture a city after warring against it; also used in Deut 9:17 to describe how the angry Moses seized the two tablets of stone and smashed them.  It is also used in 1st Samuel 23:26 (capturing an enemy) and in 1st Kings 18:40 (Elijah commanding seizure of the Baal prophets for purposes of execution).

Fourth, the Greek word in the Lxx here is βιασάμενος, and means “to force, dominate”.  Friberg says it is “always with a component of force”, and all other standard lexicons agree: UBS says

“exercise force (if midd.) or suffer violence (if pass.)” citing Mt 11.12 and “enter by force (Lk 16.16)”.  LNIDA says “to experience a violent attack…”.  LSCOTT says “force, an act of violence…against one's will”.  THAYER says “to force, inflict violence on…”.  TDNT,  “The reference of the term is always to “forced” as distinct from voluntary acts. The middle means “to compel,” “overpower” (sometimes sexually), the passive “to be constrained.” BDAG, “to gain an objective by force” (citing Dt. 22:28).

In the NT, this Greek word appears in of Matt 11:12 where the kingdom of God is controversially said to suffer ‘violence’, and Luke 16:16, where people ‘force’ their way into it.  

Fifth, 22:28 further describes the sex act as “he has violated her”, the Hebrew word for ‘violated’ is anah, and while cognate usage is not dispositive, this word is used in at least 5 other OT passages where forcible rape is clear, making it reasonable to demand very good contrary evidence before we say Deut 22:28 is an exception to the rule: 

And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force (Hebrew: anah). (Gen 34:2 NAS)
It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled (Hebrew: anah)  her. (Deut. 21:14 NAU)
But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me; instead, they ravished (Hebrew: anah) my concubine so that she died. (Jdg 20:5 NAS)
However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated (Hebrew: anah) her and lay with her. (2Sa 13:14 NAS)
Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David's brother, responded, "Do not let my lord suppose they have put to death all the young men, the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead; because by the intent of Absalom this has been determined since the day that he violated (Hebrew: anah) his sister Tamar. (2 Sam. 13:32 NAU)
They ravished (Hebrew: anah )the women in Zion, The virgins in the cities of Judah. (Lam 5:11 NAS)

Sixth, 3rd century church father Tertullian thought this was about rape: 

The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement!

(Five Books against Marcion, Book 4, ch. 34,

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.).

Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Seventh, that 22:28 describes a virgin who was forced or raped, may also be inferred by noting that v. 29 requires the man to pay a specified sum for the bride price that is very high in light of average earnings of the average man in those days, while the price the man had to pay in the similar circumstance described in Exodus 22 was not specified:

Exodus 22:16-17	Deuteronomy 22:28-29
16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.  17 "If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.	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.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a presumption attaches that the bride-price was left unexpressed in Exodus because the sexual situation in Exodus was less severe of a crime than the case described in Deut. 22:28-29. But even conservative commentators admit Exodus was talking about "rape", and since I'm a skeptic who doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy, I have no problems with the bible giving inconsistent solutions to the single crime of "rape":

In the event that a man raped a single woman, he was to pay the bride-price and marry her (Exodus 22:16–17).

Vos, H. F. (1999). Nelson's new illustrated Bible manners & customs : How the people of the Bible really lived (Page 104). Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson Publishers.

If a girl was already betrothed and was raped by another man she could not become that other man’s wife, as would normally be the case (Deuteronomy 22:28–29), because she already belonged to her husband–to–be. Such violation involved the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:23–27).

Gower, R., & Wright, F. (1997, c1987). The new manners and customs of Bible times. Updated and rewritten version of Manners and customs of Bible lands, by Fred Wright.; Includes indexes. Chicago: Moody Press.

   "Reasonableness" doesn't require that we check out the lexical meanings of the Hebrew words in question, otherwise, nobody would be reasonable to interpret the bible they way they do unless they first conducted a scholarly level inquiry into its original languages.  Ok...do you forbid sinners from accepting Christ until they do a scholarly study of 2,000 years of Christian differences on soteriology?  Are you suspicious that the salvation of biblically illiterate people who nevertheless "accepted Jesus as their savior"?  If not, then unless you wish to tell the skeptic they can safely delay the day of their repentance as long as they are studying the original languages of scripture, you are going to have to admit that conducting a scholarly study of the Hebrew words is not necessary, before the skeptic's interpretation can be "reasonable".

Eighth, D.L. Christensen in the Word Biblical Commentary considers this to be seduction, but he calls it "rape" and allocates the "seduction" classification to how the event is viewed "legally":

If a man rapes an unbetrothed woman in the city, it is considered seduction, requiring marriage and paying the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver (vv 28–29), as a dowry.

Christensen, D. L. (2002). Vol. 6B: Word Biblical Commentary : Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 523). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Let's consider some objections:  

God would never force a woman to marry the man who raped her
Let me guess...you were born and raised in a democratic nation where lots of people fight for individual rights, correct?  But apologists argue that this requirement was morally good because, in the ANE, if the woman's virginity was taken, her value was diminished in the eyes of her village, so that forcing her to marry the rapist was a loving way to ensure that she could have restored status in the community through marriage and child-bearing.  Some apologists will speculate the forced marriage forbade sexual relations, but there is no evidence that sexual relations in such marriages were forbidden.

The fact that Deut. 22:24 requires the woman to be killed and 22:28-29 doesn't, proves these are two different situations

I'm not seeing the argument.  Yes, v. 24 doesn't express or imply rape:

 23 "If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,
 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

In that in 22:24, the woman is to be killed because she did not cry out, implying she had consented, and yet it still says the man “violated” (anah) his neighbor’s wife.  Apologists will seize on this as if this less forceful sense of anah in v. 24 must be read back into the anah appearing in v. 28.  But there are several problems with this knee-jerk method of exegesis so common among apologists:  

---a) vv. 23-24 are missing the ‘seize’ comment that appears in v. 28, which is significant especially for inerrantists who think only one human being authored the entire book of Deuteronomy (why didn’t Moses assert in 23-24 that the man had “seized” the virgin, if Moses was willing to use that word later in v. 28?).  The implication is that the sex act in 23-24 was consensual, in which case it is for sheer grammatical necessity that the anah of v. 24 would take the nuance of positional disgrace or dishonor (i.e., the woman’s consent doesn’t negate the moral disgrace of the man’s initiating such act on a betrothed virgin, indeed, consenting extra-marital sexual relations are disgraceful);  

---b) context determines the precise nuance a biblical author intended for his chosen word, and since it was already shown that v. 28’s ‘seize’ (taphas/βιασάμενος) means rape, the anah of v. 28 is governed more closely by the other word in the same verse, than it is governed by the sense anah takes 4 verses earlier.  Yes, Moses could very easily be giving anah in v. 24 a nuance not quite as popular as the nuance of “force” that it takes in v. 28 and most other cases.  

---c) anah literally means “bowed down”, and since most agree that vv. 23-24 do not describe rape but consenting sex, the author could have simply been referring to the physical position the woman took in her choice to have extra-marital sex.

---d) I do not believe Moses is the only author of Deuteronomy, nor do I believe the redactors did a perfect job of making that book teach morals and laws consistently.  I accept a hypothesis that is taught in all but the must fundagelical bible colleges and seminaries:  the documentary hypothesis.  Therefore, I have no reasonable basis to worry that the way I interpret 22:28-29 might contradict what the same book says elsewhere about a debateably similar subject.  Bible inerrancy is so controversial even among those who espouse it, that it is reasonable to say it does not deserve to be exalted in our minds to the status of governing hermeneutic (i.e., automatically cite the interpretation's contradicting another part of the bible as the only reason needed to trash it and look for another).   It just might be more reasonable to view two passages in one book as contrary to each other, than to pretend that any harmonization scenario is going to be "better".

Finally, the fact that the slave-owner is the only person required to do anything to atone for "his" sin of sex with a slave betrothed to another man (Leviticus 19:20-22), when in fact it is clear the passage is addressing "rape" (and it is clear that this is adultery that would, absent the girl's slave status, be punishable by death) makes it reasonable for those who accept Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch to say the person who wrote out Deut. 22:28-29, also wrote Leviticus 19:20-22, and had a very low view of woman, and such a man wasn't likely to view "forced to marry her rapist" in the shocking horrifically unacceptable way that it is viewed by modern-day democratic American Christians.

Much more could be said, but "reasonableness" doesn't require anybody, whether Christian or skeptic, to knock the opposing interpretation all the way out of the ballpark.  How much scholarly study of Mormonism do you suppose the average Catholic and Protestant fundamentalist did, before deciding that it was a false form of Christianity?  Isn't it likely they did little more than read a book or two written by an anti-Mormon (i.e., the way most creationist Christians read a few blogs written by creationists and become certain that evolution is a lie of the devil?)

If you aren't going to label Christians "unreasonable" for reaching confident conclusions before they've conducted a thorough scholarly review, fairness dictates that you also refrain from labeling skeptics unreasonable should they reach confident conclusions before they've conducted a thorough scholarly review.

But if you are this objective, then you leave yourself no basis to insist that Psalm 14:1 and Romans 1:20 correctly broad-brush skeptics and atheists.  When you tangle with me, you soon find out that poets that lived thousands of years ago aren't exactly the best sources of information about today's unbelievers.  But you cannot really be blamed for being impressed with empty rhetoric.  Just look at the pastors of fundamentalist churches.  The pastor's deep bellowing or screechy voiced confidence makes their trusting congregation positively certain that they should babble incoherently...or adopt KJV onlyism...or accept 5-point Calvinism, or jump around the church in voo-doo like stupor, etc, etc.


Since apologists find life is easier for themselves by quietly deleting my rebuttals from their blogs, here's a screenshot showing I posted news of my rebuttal at Chilton's blog, just in case that post disappears.  If he chooses to ignore my rebuttal, it won't be because he "didn't know about it":