>>25607014
>Please point out where in the preceding verses it is stated that a man should be punished (by death) for raping an unbetrothed virgin
These laws are in the context of unfaithfulness and fornication, not the context of rape. This is an iron age legal code, and not a modern legal code. The obsession with precision and specificity that defines modern law did not exist for the audience for whom this text was written. It is transparent what your argument is and it is anachronistic, the reader was intended to take the rape provision and extend it to any rape because the author knew that's what his audience would do. To illustrate, there is no express law concerning what the specific response to a sodomitic rape ought to be, but that does not mean the victim is to be put to death in such a case because it is implicit from this text (though it refers to the rape of a woman) that the victim of a rape incurs no guilt. This is the way the apostles of Jesus Christ interpreted the law, as we see for example Paul drawing on Leviticus directly condemn lesbianism in a way it did not, because the prohibition of male homosexuality is also applicable to female homosexuality.
>Every single verse from 22:22 to 22:27 refers to either married or betrothed women.
So, let's follow your logic. Following your logic the rape of a married woman, or an unmarried non-virgin has no legal status. Because there is no specific and particular law saying the exact same thing but with these specific words, it must mean according to you it's open season on them, it's like it doesn't even happen.
<but verse 22 says they will be put to dea-
Doesn't matter, it doesn't repeat itself while using the specific word rape
>at best the verses are ambiguous w.r.t. what to do with the rapist
"He shall be put to death" does not seem very ambiguous to me.
>The broader term, "taphas"/take is used here because no such distinction is being made between rape and non-rape.
Take is not a broader term. To take a woman means to have sex with her. If I say "I had sex with that woman", is rape part of your interpretation of that sentence? If it is consult a psychiatrist. Precisely the same kind of language *is* what is used in the prior verses when it describes the adulterers as lying down together, another generic phrasing that simply means to have sex, yet you have already conceded it is excluding rape despite not explicitly spelling it out like you suddenly insist it must for this verse. This text compares rape to murder, is murder something that's only punished with specific victims or something which is universally reviled?
>reinterpret the plain reading of a text from antiquity
The plain reading of a text from antiquity is its plain reading in antiquity, not to someone in his gamer chair wearing programmer socks flapping at a cheeto-dust covered fairy-lit keyboard. You are a degenerate loser who wants to justify his bestial desire to rape a woman because he couldn't possibly acquire one otherwise.
>to make it better accord with modern vaginal prejudices
I told you the proper response to fornication is a non-divorceable shotgun wedding. You're an idiot.
>christcuck
Oh, there's the spaghetti, you couldn't help yourself from throwing off the mask for even one post! How embarrassing. I expect any reply to be more overtly in bad faith, probably with more anger and clown words like "fairy tale" or "magic". And by the way, I know you've never read Tertullian, so tell whatever tranny or bull dyke you're getting all this from to shove it.