I will respond using reddish font to try to preserve clarity.
Ok now on the Deuteronomy issue. I'm going to use two translations the KJV and the NASB. Deut 22:22 the key word is lying. This verse is consensual sex between a man and a married woman. They are both put to death. Both NASB and KJV use lying.
Deut 22:23 This is also consensual sex. The girl didn't cry out for help and it also uses the word lie. Both are put to death.
Yes you are correct here, however, I believe we need to focus on context not mere words.
Deut 22:25 This verse uses the word lie but before it, it specifically states that the woman is forced and she is outside the city where no one can hear her cry out. Therefore the man is put to death.
Think on your words here when considering your later comment.
Deut 22:28 The KJV and NASB is a bit different in wording here. KJV uses "lay hold on her and lie with her" and NASB uses "and seizes her and lies with her"
Both of these translations tell a story of someone taking without permission. But since the girl is not engaged or married the law states that the man is to marry her so she doesn't live her life alone. No man would want her if they knew she was raped. If the law would have stoned the man for this rape then the woman would be left in shame. Makes complete sense to me.
In your understanding of v25, you see that the rapist only is put to death , leaving his victim to face a life of rejection. Now, in this later case, you argue the exact opposite....why is that? Surely if stigma was an issue, it would have to be an issue also in the case of the victim of V25...no?
Words are important but they can not override context. Context is what gives words their exact meaning. I am noticing that you seem to focus on words but seem to be a trifle indifferent to context.
Now, I would like you to consider a few other issues.
When Dinah's brothers exacted retribution for their sister's rape, there was no thought of her being left a spinster...in fact her rapist wanted to marry her. see Gen 34. I'm not offering this as a model response, just as an insight into the thinking of those days. There was much indignation, but no thought of Dinah being left on the shelf.
Next consider the affair of David's daughter Tamar. True, she seems to have lived a life in recluse, but note the attitude of her brother Absalom. His thought is for his sister to put it behind her. see 2 Sam 13 (v20) So it was her 'choice' to live as she did.
I'm not seeing a very strong social stigma here, but a very very distraught young girl..
Next, consider
Deu_17:6
On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.
Deu_19:15
"A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.
Now then in the case of Deu 22:25,26,27. Where are the two + witnesses to this crime, such that the bad guy can be put to death.??
See how context is so vitally important in placing the correct understanding on mere words?
Note also that in V28,29, They are discovered, suggesting the possibility of two + witnesses, yet no thought of execution...a life sentence yes..........
This conversation is I believe not off topic as the thread is interested in what versions of the Bible are 'best'.
I have raised serious objections to the Niv and I have defended my position through the application of a consideration of context and also looking at the broader picture. The use of 'rape' by the Niv does not fit the specific context, nor the context of the whole counsel of God's word.
I believe the use of the word 'rape' in this case by the Niv is unjustifiably wrong and can hamper a proper understanding of Scripture and most importantly, the nature and character of God.
And it is the character of God we need to be understanding here because the way in which things were treated socially 3k years ago are not as we would today, but the Lord is the same yesterday, today and forever.