Why Don't We Hear About Single Christian Women Looking for Husbands in Other Countries?

Again, and I find myself being redundant here, multiple English Bible translations say that Dinah was raped and taken by force. Furthermore, the Hebrew word (Strong's concordance 6031 a.anah) used in Gen 34:2 that some English Bible versions translate as defiled means to afflict, do violence, force, oppress, silence, treat harshly, violate.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6031a.htm

Can you prove that the Strong's Concordance is wrong and the Hebrew word 6031 a.anah.
used in Genesis 34:2 that some English Bible versions translate as defile does not mean to afflict, do violence, force, oppress, silence, treat harshly, violate?

You can deny and ignore the existence and definition of the Hebrew word 6031 a.anah in Gen 34:2 if you like. That is your prerogative. However, it does not mean that I will ignore it.

The Hebrew word used in Ez 44:25 that English Bible versions translate as defile
is Strong's concordance 2930 Tame

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/ezekiel/44-25.htm

and it does mean unclean.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2930.htm

However, Strong's concordance
2930 Tame IS NOT the same Hebrew word in Gen 34:2 that describes HOW Shechem lay with Dinah.

The Hebrew word used in Gen 34:2 that some English Bible versions translate as defile is Strong's Concordance 6031 a.anah and it means to afflict, do violence, force, oppress, silence, treat harshly, violate.

Both words that can be translated as defiled.
However, they are two different Hebrew words with two different meanings and two different contexts. They are not the same Hebrew words, and they do not have the same definitions.

I'm not here to debate. I wanted to cite scripture, various Bible translations and Strong's Bible Concordance for readers who may be interested. I have done that. I do not aim to change your mind on the subject matter. I believe your mind is already made up. Likewise, you will not change my mind on the subject matter either.

I will continue to rely on scripture verses and Strong's Concordance to study Hebrew the original language of the Bible. God's word is everlasting - not man-made, unsubstantiated assumptions and opinions.

Careful. You're threatening a sacred cow there. Can't admit KJV has any transcription errors.

*cough*digged down a wall*cough*

Rapist that thinks he loves his victim and speaks tenderly to her? I imagine that's pretty much exactly how most every perpetrator of date rape acts.

Thanks for the warning. I picked up on that. As I stated in my post, I not here for debate. Others are free to believe what they believe, as am I. I'm not here for the KJV only debate either. The KJV is a translation only. The original translations of the Bible is Hebrew and Greek. I much more concerned about the Hebrew and Greek meanings of Biblical words and concepts.

God is sovereign. He could have inspired the various men who wrote the Bible to write it in English first. God chose Hebrew and Greek.

The English bible (KJV included) is a translation. Do people (I know you don't Lynx) think that German only readers use the KJV? Do they think that people who only read and write in French Thanks for the warning. I picked up on that. That's way I said that I'm not on here to debate. I'm certainly not here to debate KJV only. I have way too much on my to do list for that. Lol
KJV only is a subject matter I'm not interested in and I do not believe in it.

Thanks for the warning. I picked up on that. That's way I said that I'm not on here to debate. I'm certainly not here to debate KJV only. I have way too much on my to do list for that. Lol
KJV only is a subject matter I don't care about or believe in.

Sorry. I made a double post earlier. I hate when that happens. I miss the old edit function. Anyway, I hope you know what I was getting at.

Cinder,

I appreciated your sensible perspective.

I grew up in church. However, in recent years, I've noticed this push by some to romanticize, sanitize and/or add nobilty to certain sins that took place in the Bible that were never intended to be romantic or noble.

For example, the idea that Adam sinned in the garden because he loved Eve so much and could not bare to live without her. The bible says no such thing, yet certain groups are pushing these ideas.

Not trying to get off on a tangent here, but there was nothing romantic or noble about what Shechem did to Dinah.

How many females are raped and accused of asking for it or wanting it? Only God knows. Sex trafficking is a huge problem around the globe. Some of it even happening in churches. With attitudes like Dinah wanted it, it was consensual (the Bible says no such thing) no wonder sex trafficking is such a huge problem.

Actually one of the things I was finding interesting about the Biblical account of Dinah on this revisit was that it seems like none of her male family members blamed her at all, yet often in similar cultures in modern day it is treated like it was the woman's fault if she didn't do enough to guard her virtue and so she is guilty of letting it happen rather than expecting men to be at all accountable for their sexual behavior.

Because American women have been destroyed by feminism. The idea is that these third world countries are more traditional and conservative, therefore the women who grew up there might actually respect and honor their husbands.

Here’s a social experiment to illustrate this point: Start posting Scriptures on your social media about how women should submit to their husbands or wear head coverings and can’t hold positions of leadership in the Church. Then watch the chaos ensue!

....

haha I will let those figure it out whther they think Dinah was raped or not I got nothing to prove to people who dont read all of the Bible, or dont even bother to translate it properly.


so...seoul you got your answers yet. From women that dont live in the same country as you???
Maybe its just your country.

No need to debate - as you say, both our minds are made up. But when bible versions change every couple of years to become more politically correct to the masses (such as the NIV), you can understand why some people revert to the likes of KJV which remains unchanged. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's certainly better than a translation made to achieve a political aim, and there are many of those.

Strong's concordance - to my reckoning - allows for seduction rather than rape (as we would call it today), as afflict, oppress and violate are all as valid descriptors for fornication as they are for rape. The other language in the text of speaking tenderly and love after the act is not consistent with rape (i.e. rape is an act of hate, not of love, hence many rape-murders today when the rapist doesn't want to be caught, and consistent with Amnon's crime when he hated Tamar after he had satisfied his lust - not love).

Even christian women act and search for partners in the way the world does. Women are allowed to pursue relationships with anyone but choose to let the man do all the work, literally. This is from personal experience. Long distance relationships create more security and companionship and genuine partnership, but they also have more potential to have massive amounts of problems. It works for some and not others. I would say that most people would not be able to make long distance relationships work. I tried it myself a couple of times.