Not good to presume. I’ll have to ask you if you are asking for the Bible to micromanage again, especially after I pointed out that all evil works are punishable by death according to it. The Bible is more like a constitution rather than a whole book of laws; do you know the definition between the two of those, now?
You haven’t proven anything yet, other than you are seeking self-justification. If it is not enough that violent rape is mentioned once and that the punishment cited for it is death on the part of the offending male, then what is? Once is enough. Quibbling between betrothed and non-betrothed females is lawyeristic dissembling.
BTW, you go on and on about the Bible being like the Koran but you haven’t cited any parallel suras to the Bible verses you’re quoting.
Yes. Yes, I am. I think the Middle East today would be a whole different place if they had a religion that considered women important enough to warrant a couple sentences about rape. Thou shalt not lay hold of any woman by force. Not a married woman, not a widow, not a virgin betrothed or unbetrothed, or a child, not a slave of your own or another's. Yea, verily I say unto thee, even the wife of your own should not be stricken and forced.
If the God and the prophets of the Old Testament had time and paper enough to say not to boil beef in milk, not to plant two different kinds of seeds in one field, not to let your brother's sheep wander off, not to take a mother bird from her nest, not to wear wool and linen mixed blend... that's not micro-managing? You are the worst apologist I have ever had the amusement to meet.
But no, the OT did not even recognize rape as a legal category. If you violated another man's property, you were punished. Your punishment did not vary if it was rape, no fine to be paid to the raped woman, no flogging before death to display that this was a double-crime... because it wasn't. Women had no rights. If you ruined a virgin, you paid her father and you got to keep her. (You broke it, you bought it.)
And that is the Middle East today.
Either your argument that taphas doesn't include rape is mendacious, or rape is so unimportant in society, there is no bother mentioning it. Either way points to an attitude about women paralleled today in modern Islam. It is clearly closer to the OT than modern day Christianity is.
Quibbling between betrothed and non-betrothed females is lawyeristic dissembling.
Then why does Deuteronomy make a point of "quibbling" between betrothed and non-betrothed? You have sex with a betrothed woman, you die. You have sex with a non-betrothed woman, you marry her. Clearly "betrothed" was the cognitive category that makes a difference to the man's legal status, not force. The presence or absence of force makes no difference to the man's legal status. It is, in fact, according to you, so unimportant we must not mention it. Presence of force indicates the female should not be punished, and that is the only mention of rape in THE WHOLE BIBLE.
A whole book dedicated to guiding men, and it was more important to mention not to boil beef in milk than it was to mention not raping women. Because that's merely a quibble. After all, in most societies we don't worry about men raping women, we worry about them boiling beef in milk and running around taking mother birds off their nests and then there's that rash of wool & linen wearing that always rears its ugly head whenever young men get their blood up....
Face it. The morality of the Old Testament is the morality of the Middle East today. Muslim men are living the dream.