Numbers 30:2 and Vows

[NickF]

Briefly, cause I can’t get sucked back in today. I believe that Exodus passage gives the man recourse to go to the elders and force the father to hand over the daughter upon tendering the price of virgins since they already slept together.

And by no means do I think permission must always be gotten. All I said is ownership of the woman is transferred.

If I find a chicken roaming free, and it just wanders into my yard and wants me to adopt it. The chicken becomes mine.

And Zec I don’t think this sin of sex outside of marriage is hidden at all. Dozens of people I’ve spoken to on the matter sees it throughout Torah and the prophets.

I’m simply saying this is an important thing to get right and there’s seemingly ample evidence that transfer of ownership/responsibility is the deciding factor.

Exodus 21:4 That woman despite being a wife and bearing children, still belongs as do the children, to the master, not the servant.

 

[Maddog]

Her ex gave her the boot out to the curb, divorced her then married the already married woman he was committing adultery with. With the divorce papers in hand, she was free. She was not divorced because she was unfaithful, he just wanted another woman just as accused in Malachi and divorce was his "tool." She is a sweetheart and has been mine for almost 20 years. Oh, by the way, did I mention he was a pastor?

 

[NickF]

And to the men who didn’t “get permission” from the father. If that father released his daughter to go free in the world, or somehow abdicated his rights to decide his daughter’s life path, then she’s a free agent. If a father acts like his daughter is a free agent at 18 because the laws of this land say she is. Then she transferred her self ownership to her new husband. I know of only a handful of men who actually act like they possess the authority God says they have over their daughters. Most men abdicate their authority to the state.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And to the men who didn’t “get permission” from the father. If that father released his daughter to go free in the world, or somehow abdicated his rights to decide his daughter’s life path, then she’s a free agent. If a father acts like his daughter is a free agent at 18 because the laws of this land say she is. Then she transferred her self ownership to her new husband. I know of only a handful of men who actually act like they possess the authority God says they have over their daughters. Most men abdicate their authority to the state.

This is nowhere in scripture.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Her ex gave her the boot out to the curb, divorced her then married the already married woman he was committing adultery with. With the divorce papers in hand, she was free. She was not divorced because she was unfaithful, he just wanted another woman just as accused in Malachi and divorce was his "tool." She is a sweetheart and has been mine for almost 20 years. Oh, by the way, did I mention he was a pastor?

She was clearly free to remarry, no doubt. But why didn’t she need to have ownership transferred?

 

[steve]

I believe that Exodus passage gives the man recourse to go to the elders and force the father to hand over the daughter upon tendering the price of virgins since they already slept together.

I don’t agree, but I’m not going to debate it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@windblown just pointed out something that I thought was pretty funny. If one flesh only means sex then we’re told not to have sex with a harlot because we’d be having sex with a harlot.

1 Corinthians 6:16 says, “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”

So don’t have sex with a harlot or you’ll end up having sex with a harlot. It’s a nonsensical position. One flesh is marriage. Or rather marriage is one flesh.

 

[NickF]

If one flesh only means sex then we’re told not to have sex with a harlot because we’d be having sex with a harlot.

1 Corinthians 6:16 says, “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”

So don’t have sex with a harlot or you’ll end up having sex with a harlot. It’s a nonsensical position. One flesh is marriage. Or rather marriage is one flesh.

Why don't you take the verse in context instead of cherry picking it and making it fit your dogma?
The whole segment, and nearly the whole chapter is about fornication. Not Adultery. Flee fornication, don't have sex with harlots. It's not about fleeing adultery, or avoiding bad marriage choices. It's clearly about fleeing sinful sexual unions (fornication).
15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

7 1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

To avoid adultery? No... to avoid FORNICATION, a man should be married and keep his sexual expression to the marriage with his OWN wife. Not to a harlot who is guilty of whoredom which incidentally is described as a different sin than adultery. If sex equals marriage, God would not assign another category of sin when one already exists namely adultery. It's completely and utterly mind numbingly illogical and nonsensical to assert otherwise.

IF you were correct, and sexual union creates a marriage, then it would be listed as adultery but it's not. But this whole segment of scripture clearly shoots holes in every facet of your argument. It's nonsensical to use different words, with different meanings, and different spellings, to talk about what would be adultery, if your claim was correct. IF sexual intercourse created a "marriage" then all sexual intercourse would be marriage or adultery. There would be no third category, that's logically impossible. So because there is a third category of whoredom or fornication, we must conclude that marriage is not formed by sexual union. This is borne out in all the other laws stipulating what sexual unions are forbidden and unlawful.

Repeating "one flesh is marriage" does not substantiate your claim. It must align with the rest of scripture. If there is one verse that shows contrary to that claim, then your claim is void. I've shown half a dozen verses showing that a marriage does not come into effect until responsibility/ownership/possession has transferred, or a single verse proving that there is a third category of sexual union between a man and woman that is unlawful.

Hebrews 13:4 for example. Why the two categories if all sexual unions between two people are either marriage or adultery as you claim? Because there's a third category. Sex outside of TTWCM, sex that is not adultery or marriage.
The proper joining together of man and woman as is shown time and again throughout scripture. Abraham sent his servant to find a bride for Isaac. Her father relinquished her to the new husband. And then he "knew" her. God gave Eve to Adam, and then he knew her. All of these instances are of a man taking possession, and then having sex with the woman. Even the taking of a war bride required certain things to be fulfilled before she would be called his woman. A man can entice a maiden, lay with her and is then required to fulfill another step before she is called his wife/woman. This clearly and conclusively proves that the sexual union emphatically did not create the "marriage/ownership" transfer.

I'm baffled at how this is so difficult to grasp unless this is just a sacred cow.

I'm beginning to think there's no real point to discussing this short of writing a paper clearly proving out the case with copious scripture references.

 

[FollowingHim]

And to the men who didn’t “get permission” from the father. If that father released his daughter to go free in the world, or somehow abdicated his rights to decide his daughter’s life path, then she’s a free agent. If a father acts like his daughter is a free agent at 18 because the laws of this land say she is. Then she transferred her self ownership to her new husband. I know of only a handful of men who actually act like they possess the authority God says they have over their daughters. Most men abdicate their authority to the state.

This is nowhere in scripture.

I agree that isn't stated clearly in scripture - but I think it is consistent with scripture. A father must give his permission for a daughter to marry. However, if he decided she was free to do whatever she liked, then that is itself permission for her to get married. If he doesn't believe he should be consulted on who she should marry, and thinks that is her decision alone - then he is giving her permission to marry whoever she feels she should marry.

So a man who marries such a woman is doing so with her father's permission.

The reality is that in our present culture the vast majority of fathers believe that marriage is their daughter's decision, not their own. We cannot change that culture, we have to interact with it.

 

[FollowingHim]

Holy hell men, the SIN OF ADULTERY is what we’re talking about. The mortal of sin of taking a woman who’s not yours to take is nothing to be flippant about, especially for men who claim they want to take women as much as we do.

Absolutely agree. I for one am certainly not being flippant about that.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Her ex gave her the boot out to the curb, divorced her then married the already married woman he was committing adultery with. With the divorce papers in hand, she was free. She was not divorced because she was unfaithful, he just wanted another woman just as accused in Malachi and divorce was his "tool." She is a sweetheart and has been mine for almost 20 years. Oh, by the way, did I mention he was a pastor?

Well it's mostly academic at this point, since even if you marrying the divorced woman, is considered adultery, as it says in Matt 5:32, there is no going back to the first husband, as Deut 24:1-4 clearly prohibits this. I cringe when I see Christians going around saying that a man and woman have to divorce and go back to their first marriage partners, as that is clearly unbiblical. This pastor sounds like a pastor of a church I grew up in. Matt 5:31 clearly tells us that he is the cause of her commtting adultery, so he bears the guilt. I find it ironic for those of us who understand biblical marriage, that the reason he left her was to marry another woman, who herself was married, and in those scenarios, I always want to make sure the first husband has the opportunity to reconcile with the first wife, with full knowlege that refusing to do so, does in fact cause her to commit adultery, and that reconciling with her, while remaining married to the second wife, does not constitute adultery.

Given that this marriage to her occurred 20 years ago, most likely before you came to understand Biblical laws regarding marriage, whether this marriage you are in, involved committing adultery or not, there is no backing out of it, unless she were to commit fornication, as that is the only cause for divorce that would not cause her to commit adultery. I don't believe this concept of "living in adultery" is ever mentioned in Scripture, albeit the translations that we possess seem to have inserted the word "commits", as I don't believe it is in the original Greek, but I think it is a proper clarification of what Jesus stated. The committing adultery happened, but I don't believe that it is seen as an ongoing continual action, but I could be wrong, and perhaps I am introducing a whole new debate when bringing it up.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

@The Revolting Man Mortal sin vs venial sin, is a whole new can of worms altogether.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why don't you take the verse in context instead of cherry picking it and making it fit your dogma?
The whole segment, and nearly the whole chapter is about fornication. Not Adultery. Flee fornication, don't have sex with harlots. It's not about fleeing adultery, or avoiding bad marriage choices. It's clearly about fleeing sinful sexual unions (fornication).
15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

7 1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

To avoid adultery? No... to avoid FORNICATION, a man should be married and keep his sexual expression to the marriage with his OWN wife. Not to a harlot who is guilty of whoredom which incidentally is described as a different sin than adultery. If sex equals marriage, God would not assign another category of sin when one already exists namely adultery. It's completely and utterly mind numbingly illogical and nonsensical to assert otherwise.

IF you were correct, and sexual union creates a marriage, then it would be listed as adultery but it's not. But this whole segment of scripture clearly shoots holes in every facet of your argument. It's nonsensical to use different words, with different meanings, and different spellings, to talk about what would be adultery, if your claim was correct. IF sexual intercourse created a "marriage" then all sexual intercourse would be marriage or adultery. There would be no third category, that's logically impossible. So because there is a third category of whoredom or fornication, we must conclude that marriage is not formed by sexual union. This is borne out in all the other laws stipulating what sexual unions are forbidden and unlawful.

Repeating "one flesh is marriage" does not substantiate your claim. It must align with the rest of scripture. If there is one verse that shows contrary to that claim, then your claim is void. I've shown half a dozen verses showing that a marriage does not come into effect until responsibility/ownership/possession has transferred, or a single verse proving that there is a third category of sexual union between a man and woman that is unlawful.

Hebrews 13:4 for example. Why the two categories if all sexual unions between two people are either marriage or adultery as you claim? Because there's a third category. Sex outside of TTWCM, sex that is not adultery or marriage.
The proper joining together of man and woman as is shown time and again throughout scripture. Abraham sent his servant to find a bride for Isaac. Her father relinquished her to the new husband. And then he "knew" her. God gave Eve to Adam, and then he knew her. All of these instances are of a man taking possession, and then having sex with the woman. Even the taking of a war bride required certain things to be fulfilled before she would be called his woman. A man can entice a maiden, lay with her and is then required to fulfill another step before she is called his wife/woman. This clearly and conclusively proves that the sexual union emphatically did not create the "marriage/ownership" transfer.

I'm baffled at how this is so difficult to grasp unless this is just a sacred cow.

I'm beginning to think there's no real point to discussing this short of writing a paper clearly proving out the case with copious scripture references.

Except that there is no sin of fornication. It doesn’t exist. It’s not laid out anywhere, never defined or a penalty laid out. Fornication is the entire category of sexual sin of which adultery obviously is a subset.

This is vital. You can’t move forward in purging the Greco-Roman morality from your faith until you get fornication right. It doesn’t exist as an individual sin. I defy you to find it in the Law or defined anywhere in scripture.

It almost always a translation of the word porneia which simply means prohibited sexual acts (my paraphrase so double check me). It has nothing to do with sex before marriage.

 

[James Pease]

Well it's mostly academic at this point, since even if you marrying the divorced woman, is considered adultery, as it says in Matt 5:32, there is no going back to the first husband, as Deut 24:1-4 clearly prohibits this. I cringe when I see Christians going around saying that a man and woman have to divorce and go back to their first marriage partners, as that is clearly unbiblical. This pastor sounds like a pastor of a church I grew up in. Matt 5:31 clearly tells us that he is the cause of her commtting adultery, so he bears the guilt. I find it ironic for those of us who understand biblical marriage, that the reason he left her was to marry another woman, who herself was married, and in those scenarios, I always want to make sure the first husband has the opportunity to reconcile with the first wife, with full knowlege that refusing to do so, does in fact cause her to commit adultery, and that reconciling with her, while remaining married to the second wife, does not constitute adultery.

Given that this marriage to her occurred 20 years ago, most likely before you came to understand Biblical laws regarding marriage, whether this marriage you are in, involved committing adultery or not, there is no backing out of it, unless she were to commit fornication, as that is the only cause for divorce that would not cause her to commit adultery. I don't believe this concept of "living in adultery" is ever mentioned in Scripture, albeit the translations that we possess seem to have inserted the word "commits", as I don't believe it is in the original Greek, but I think it is a proper clarification of what Jesus stated. The committing adultery happened, but I don't believe that it is seen as an ongoing continual action, but I could be wrong, and perhaps I am introducing a whole new debate when bringing it up.

A woman that has been sent away with a certificate of divorce is free to remarry without commiting adultery. If she marries another man she may not return to the first. Marrying a sent away woman with a certificate of divorce is not adultery. Sin is defined by transgressing the law, there is no law that states what you claim.

 

[Edward]

I do disagree that a Father can refuse after the man pays in exodus. Otherwise the logic of a man could be: well if I just seduce her I only have a 50/50 shot at getting her, so I should just rape her and then it's a guarantee. I believe the father can refuse a negotiated dowry and require the highest price possible for virgin. If the man pays the father and the father doesn't release possession of the daughter, then he has made his daughter an expensive prostitute.

Exodus 22:16-17 KJV And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (17) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
You can disagree all you want, the Bible is very clear. Her father can "utterly refuse to give her unto him,"

I don't know how a man can get a woman by just raping her, I know he is to be put to death, but this passage says nothing about giving her unto the man after he rapes her.
Deuteronomy 22:25 KJV But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

But something tells me you are referring to this passage as rape...
Deuteronomy 22:28 KJV If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
There is a difference between the word "force" in Duet 22:25 and "lay hold" in Duet 22:28. Everything about these two verses is different, especially since v 27 points out that she "cried", meaning she didn't want this guy and wanted nothing to do with him. Now let's get back to v 28, yes he did lay hold on her kind of the same way I lay hold of my woman, v 28 she didn't scream BUT they definitely were found. I also find it interesting that v 28 refers back to Ex 22:16-17. Remember the head of the house, whether it be husband or father has so much power over the woman and no she doesn't even have a say in it, it's not up for negotiation, but he has so much power that he can....
Numbers 30:3-16 KJV If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; (4) And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. (5) But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. (6) And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; (7) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. (8) But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her. (9) But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. (10) And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; (11) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. (12) But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her. (13) Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. (14) But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. (15) But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. (16) These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house.
So yes I believe the father can utterly refuse.

That’s a really excellent summation of one side of the argument and that’s fine since you come down on one side of this argument.

You assume I have picked a particular side but to the contrary the only side that I have chosen to take is the Biblical side. Remember I did say I am not the sharpest pencil when it comes to this subject and if I didn't say it on my first post for this subject, I will say it now, I have never studied this subject, so I have no biases, the only thing I have to go by is what I read in Scriptures. You say there are two sides, all I can say if there is, it is the Bible side and your side. I have not looked to any commentaries on this subject, nada, zip, zero. So if your side is the Bible side, please give me book, chapter and verse. I don't want your opinion because opinions are like armpits, everyone has them and they all smell. But I definitely will take Bible.

Scripture never commands us to negotiate with a father for his daughter,

I agree and I disagree
I agree that the Scriptures don't command us to negotiate BUT we do have examples of some form of negotiation and yes I am 100% fully aware that the Gen and Deut passages are after the fact
Genesis 34:12 KJV Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.

Deuteronomy 22:29 KJV Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

1 Samuel 18:25 KJV And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
This particular verse shows it in kind of a negative way, Saul was hoping David would get killed but David excepted his bride price and paid double.

Genesis 29:18 KJV And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
For something that was not commanded, the bride price, it definitely was done and let's not forget he served another 7 years for Rachel.
Genesis 29:27 KJV Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
You know for something that is not commanded, there sure is a lot of negotiating for bride price. And there are other examples.

Scripture never tells us what the penalty for stealing a man’s daughter is.

I disagree, I believe Scripture does tell us what the penalty is for stealing a man's daughter.
Take for instance rape, that is definitely stealing a man's daughter
Deuteronomy 22:25 KJV But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
And the penalty for that is death. Now I am going to assume you may say "she is betrothed" therefore not a man's daughter and I would disagree with that, because she is still a daughter and not a wife yet.
The other example I have is he must pay regardless whether he gets her or not.
Exodus 22:16-17 KJV And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (17) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Anyhow may we all seek Truth on this subject.

 

[James Pease]

Exodus 22:16-17 KJV And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (17) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

It says a man must surely endow her. Endow only shows up here and is defines in the qal stem as

(Qal) to obtain in exchange.

Full definition
מָהַר mâhar, maw-har'; a primitive root (perhaps rather the same as H4116 through the idea of readiness in assent); to bargain (for a wife), i.e. to wed:—endow, × surely.

You are assuming that every young woman fetches the same price. I am saying the man must pay for the woman after sex, paying a price to the father. Whatever price is negotiated. If the father is upset and refuses the price offered then the man must pay the highest price or virgin bride price at the father's request. After paying this the man gets what he purchased from the father, if not what is he paying for? By your logic what happens if a man sleeps with your daughter and you charge him the bride price and he doesn't receive your daughter because you refused, then he has sex with her again. What happens?

I don't know how a man can get a woman by just raping her, I know he is to be put to death, but this passage says nothing about giving her unto the man after he rapes her.
Deuteronomy 22:25 KJV But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

These are death penalties for adultery, notice that it's specifically a betrothed woman.

Now let's get back to v 28, yes he did lay hold on her kind of the same way I lay hold of my woman

Im not sure what your bedroom life looks like, but this is the definition for the word (lay hold) when it appears in the qal stem like it does in this verse.

(Qal)
to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
Here is full definition
תָּפַשׂ tâphas, taw-fas'; a primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably:—catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, × surely, surprise, take.

A father may break a vow of a daughter in his house. Marriage vows however never occur in the scripture so we cannot use numbers 30 as a proof for breaking a marriage. By your logic if your daughter and a young man have sex and he pays the price and you refuse to give, then they flee together and stay together, you are saying they are not married?

Clarification edit: the man is a brother in the Lord and not a pagan.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Exodus 22:16-17 KJV And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (17) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
You can disagree all you want, the Bible is very clear. Her father can "utterly refuse to give her unto him,"

I don't know how a man can get a woman by just raping her, I know he is to be put to death, but this passage says nothing about giving her unto the man after he rapes her.
Deuteronomy 22:25 KJV But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

But something tells me you are referring to this passage as rape...
Deuteronomy 22:28 KJV If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
There is a difference between the word "force" in Duet 22:25 and "lay hold" in Duet 22:28. Everything about these two verses is different, especially since v 27 points out that she "cried", meaning she didn't want this guy and wanted nothing to do with him. Now let's get back to v 28, yes he did lay hold on her kind of the same way I lay hold of my woman, v 28 she didn't scream BUT they definitely were found. I also find it interesting that v 28 refers back to Ex 22:16-17. Remember the head of the house, whether it be husband or father has so much power over the woman and no she doesn't even have a say in it, it's not up for negotiation, but he has so much power that he can....
Numbers 30:3-16 KJV If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; (4) And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. (5) But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. (6) And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; (7) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. (8) But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her. (9) But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. (10) And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; (11) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. (12) But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her. (13) Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. (14) But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. (15) But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. (16) These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house.
So yes I believe the father can utterly refuse.

You assume I have picked a particular side but to the contrary the only side that I have chosen to take is the Biblical side. Remember I did say I am not the sharpest pencil when it comes to this subject and if I didn't say it on my first post for this subject, I will say it now, I have never studied this subject, so I have no biases, the only thing I have to go by is what I read in Scriptures. You say there are two sides, all I can say if there is, it is the Bible side and your side. I have not looked to any commentaries on this subject, nada, zip, zero. So if your side is the Bible side, please give me book, chapter and verse. I don't want your opinion because opinions are like armpits, everyone has them and they all smell. But I definitely will take Bible.

I agree and I disagree
I agree that the Scriptures don't command us to negotiate BUT we do have examples of some form of negotiation and yes I am 100% fully aware that the Gen and Deut passages are after the fact
Genesis 34:12 KJV Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.

Deuteronomy 22:29 KJV Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

1 Samuel 18:25 KJV And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
This particular verse shows it in kind of a negative way, Saul was hoping David would get killed but David excepted his bride price and paid double.

Genesis 29:18 KJV And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
For something that was not commanded, the bride price, it definitely was done and let's not forget he served another 7 years for Rachel.
Genesis 29:27 KJV Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
You know for something that is not commanded, there sure is a lot of negotiating for bride price. And there are other examples.

I disagree, I believe Scripture does tell us what the penalty is for stealing a man's daughter.
Take for instance rape, that is definitely stealing a man's daughter
Deuteronomy 22:25 KJV But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
And the penalty for that is death. Now I am going to assume you may say "she is betrothed" therefore not a man's daughter and I would disagree with that, because she is still a daughter and not a wife yet.
The other example I have is he must pay regardless whether he gets her or not.
Exodus 22:16-17 KJV And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (17) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Anyhow may we all seek Truth on this subject.

What? Can you clarify some of this? I can’t tell where you’re coming down.

Especially I’d like to understand how Deuteronomy 22:28-29 isn’t a case of rape? And even if it’s not how is it not an example of possession transferring without the father’s consent?

 

[Edward]

Im not sure what your bedroom life looks like

Something like this...
Proverbs 5:19 KJV Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Song of Solomon 2:6 KJV His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.
Am I into whips, chains, and handcuffs?? NO!! But sometimes I might just chase my woman and just catch her, seize the opportunity, I might even arrest her and pin her arms down and I think you might be able to figure out the rest because I am sure you may do some of this with your women, add a little excitement. You know she is playing hard to get, poking the bear.

I am saying the man must pay for the woman after sex, paying a price to the father. Whatever price is negotiated. If the father is upset and refuses the price offered then the man must pay the highest price or virgin bride price at the father's request. After paying this the man gets what he purchased from the father,

I see it now, so I stand corrected. But I still hold to the fact that sex is not marriage. But sex plus the price and the dad saying she is yours equals marriage.

@The Revolting Man I believe I understand what @James Pease in his comment about the bride price is saying and might answer yours.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Something like this...
Proverbs 5:19 KJV Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Song of Solomon 2:6 KJV His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.
Am I into whips, chains, and handcuffs?? NO!! But sometimes I might just chase my woman and just catch her, seize the opportunity, I might even arrest her and pin her arms down and I think you might be able to figure out the rest because I am sure you may do some of this with your women, add a little excitement. You know she is playing hard to get, poking the bear.


I see it now, so I stand corrected. But I still hold to the fact that sex is not marriage. But sex plus the price and the dad saying she is yours equals marriage.

@The Revolting Man I believe I understand what @James Pease in his comment about the bride price is saying and might answer yours.

No it doesn’t. Because first off I’m giving the answer. There’s no question on my end to be answered. There’s a statement of surprisingly solid fact and nothing else.