What, They Believe JESUS Ordered Moses in Numbers 31 To Kill Women and Boys and Spare the Virgins?

  1. Does Sam Shamoun believe Moses’ officers were more moral than Trinitarian Jesus and Moses as they wanted to spare the women and children?
  2. Does Sam Shamoun believe Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 31 constitute rape in light of his comment: “no woman in her right mind would wilfully sleep with a captor who has killed her family”?
  3. Does Sam believe Trinitarian Jesus’ orders would fit in with Western society today and does he believe Trinitarian Jesus is a good role model for him today?
  4. Does Sam believe those passages are Scripture and thus “useful for teaching, rebuking and correcting and training in righteousness” [2 Timothy 3:16]?
  5. Is Sam Shamoun ashamed of Trinitarian Jesus hence why he refuses to debate Trinitarian Jesus or Islamic Jesus: Which one is more Peaceful?
Advertisements


Categories: Islam

Tags: ,

150 replies

  1. Numbers 31:
    4 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

    15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    Deuteronomy 21:

    10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 

    Like

    • A detailed article on Numbers 31:18,
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/

      The Biblical verse, Deuteronomy 21 definitely endorses and sanctions rape:

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      “10 When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      Numerous Biblical scholars have concluded that the above passage talks about rape.

      Carolyn Pressler is the Harry C. Piper Professor of Biblical Interpretation at United Theological Seminary, writes that the aim of the law in the verse (Deut. 21:1-14) was not to prohibit rape, goes on to explain further and show that the verse refers to an “act of rape”:

      “Commentators frequently understand the purpose of this law as a prohibition against RAPE on the battlefield. It is UNLIKELY THAT THIS WAS THE AIM OF THE LAW. We have argued that the law should not be translated to read: ‘If you desire her, then you shall marry her.’ Rather, the man’s desire to marry the woman is part of the protasis. The law has to do with a case where a man wishes to marry a foreign captive; it then provides a means for him to do so. Moreover, the law is concerned with what happens within the household, not what happens on the battlefield. All of the actions commanded by the law take place within the household. Finally, such a prohibition would not be keeping with the tenor of Deut 20:14 which instructs the soldiers PLUNDER THE WIVES and children of the ENEMIES: ‘DEVOUR THE SPOIL OF YOUR ENEMES.’ …
      It is not possible to say whether DEUT 21:10-13 had yet a third purpose, that is, to protect the captive woman by providing her with marital status. Presumably male and female captives were brought back to serve as SLAVES. Did the law intend to prohibit a man from having sexual relations with a captive female slave whom he did not marry? We have already suggested that the phrase … belongs to the protasis rather than to the apodosis. That being the case, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAW WHICH PROHIBITS THE MAN FROM ENGAGING IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THE WOMAN WITHOUT MARRYING HER. Rather, the law simply sets forth a procedure for marrying the woman, should that be what the man chooses. The motive clause given IN 21:14 …, ‘because you have had your way with her,’ is problematic. The verb …, here translated ‘you have had your with her,’ is used of sexual intercourse twelve times in the Hebrew Bible. In none of these instances (with the possible exception of our passage) does it refer to legally sanctioned sexuality. Most often it REFERS TO AN ACT OF RAPE (2 Sam 13:12, 14, 22, Lam 5:11, Judg 19:24; 20:5); once to adulterous sex with a consenting woman (Deut 22:24); twice to violating an unbetrothed girl whose consent or lack is not mentioned (Gen 34:2; Deut 22:29); once to sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (EZ 22:10); and once to incest (Ez 22:11). The word refers to sexual acts which are in some way illicit and are seen as DEBASING the woman. The relationship established by Deut 21:10-13, however, is legal not illicit. It may be that the drafters of the law viewed the marriage as an imposition on the woman since she was a captive, or they may have regarded marriage by cohabitation rather than by contract as not quite valid. In any case, the motive clause seems to indicate that while the law provides a way for the man to marry a captive woman and later to divorce her if he no longer desires her, it sees the marriage or the divorce as in some way VIOLATING HER.” (The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws [Walter de Gruyter – Berlin – New York, 1993] by Carolyn Pressler, page 11 – 15)

      Kathy L. Gaca Associate Professor of Classical and Mediterranean Studies says that Deut. 21:10-14 where a wife that is “raped”:

      “As another revealing part of the martial religious outlook, DEUTERONOMY 21:14 RECOGNIZES THAT SEXUAL COPULATION WAS RAPE in ravaging spear-conquest marriage, and yet condones the practice. DEUTERONOMY 21:10-14 prescribes the rites that ravaged young female war-captives must go through to become FORCED WIVES, spear-conquered inmates of ravaging Israelie forces. For example, the young woman must have her head shaved, her nails clipped, and be given a month to mourn the deaths of her father and mother, and then the man can sexually copulate with her. Even though Deuteronomy allows this sexual activity, it makes no pretense that this was legitimate husband-wife sex of the conventionally recognized civil religious sort. In and since antiquity, legitimate marriage and its inauguration by wedding rites presume the approval of the parents and kin of the betrothed, not, as in the Israelite war ravaging of the Midianites and Jabesh-gilead, the massacre of the girls’ parents and many of their relatives, and the forcible commandeering of their unmarried daughters by ravaging soldiers. Deuteronomy 21:14 does not try to conceal or make light of this fact. Instead it openly refers to the permitted copulation as the Israelite man DEBASING his slavishly treated wife by RAPING HER. Similarly, the root signifies Shechem debasing Dinah by raping her (Gen. 34:2); the Benjamite thugs debasing the Levite’s concubine by RAPING HER (Judg. 19:25, 20:5), leaving her to die; Ammon debasing Tamar by raping her (1 Sam. 13:14); and martial forces of Assyrians and other martial groups debasing the women in Zion and the virgins in Judah by raping them (Lam. 5:11). (Feminism and Religion: How Faiths View Women and Their Rights: How Faiths View Women and Their Rights [2016, editors: Michele A. Paludi, J. Harold Ellens] by Kathy L. Gaca, page 189)

      Dr. Thalia Gur-Klein writes that the passage as a whole denotes forceful “sexuality” (Rape):

      “In corroboration, Frymer-Kensly relates to the verb inna in the case of the captive wife (DUET. 21:14), CONTENDING THAT INNA MEANS WRONGDOING. Referring to the phrase: ‘If thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go wither she will’ (Deut. 21:14), Frymer-Kensky reads a captor’s refusal to marry his captive woman, dismissing her with naught, as wrongdoing, causing her to lose face (Frymer-Kensky 1999: 302, n.9). However, referring to marriage by capture, JEWISH COMMENTATORS suggest that the word inna denotes the manifold WRONG INFLICTED ON THE CAPTIVE: capturing her, and dispatching her after FORCING SEXUALITY and, by inference, unwanted marriage by capture and cohabitation upon her. Here exegesis shows awareness that marriage by capture itself is COERCIVE AND WRONGS A WOMAN (Cassuto Numbers 1961: 71; Ariel 1971: 320) In the sense of wrongdoing, the root inna in pieel, the kittle, may mean RAPE, ABDUCTION, or seduction leading to shame. Naomi Graetz cites Moshe Weinfield (1972) to claim that inna in kittel form could mean intercourse by imposition or seduction; while inferiing that INNA MEANS RAPE in the context of Judges 19:24, 20:5, 2 Samuel 13:12, 14, 22, 32, Ezekiel 22:11 and Lamentations 5:11 (Graetz 1993:307). The term inna consistently resurfaces in the sense of mental and/or PHYSICAL ABUSE and anguish in Biblical Hebrew as it does in contemporary Hebrew. In Genesis 34:2 (Dinah), Judges 20:6 (the Levite’s mistress), 2 Samuel 13:14 (Tamar) and DEUTERONOMY 21:14 (the captive wife), the verb inna denotes the PLIGHT OF THE SEXUALLY, mentally physically or SOCIALLY ABUSED WOMAN. As regards the captive woman, the captor conceivably appropriates the woman as his beula wife, consummating her sexuality which he legitimately claims as his own. His dismissal points to loss of further interest after the event – after all, sexual possession was the captor’s original motive. In this case, inna has a multifaceted meaning; captivity, COERCIVE SEXUALITY and humiliating desertion in the aftermath. As a corollary, the texts employ the term inna in the pattern of kital to denote an intensified activity on the part of the acting man while subjectifying a woman’s feelings. For comparison, we could correlate the term inna in confluent grammatical patterns. In reflexive passive hitkatel, the root changes into hitana meaning: being tortured. It describes Hagar suffering under her mistress, Sarah (Gen. 16:10). Conversely, the same root in the active patterns katal, anna and passive nikatal neenna both mean to answer and respond to another person. These examples corroborate the proposition that the verb inna in piel means COERCIVE ACTION WHICH IS UNPLEASANT AND HARMFUL TO A PERSON SUBJECTED TO IT, contrary to other forms that infer awareness and interrelationality.” (Sexual Hospitality in the Hebrew Bible: Patronymic, Metronymic, Legitimate and Illegitimate Relations [Routledge – Taylor & Francis Group, London And New York, 2014] by Thalia Gur-Klein, page 97)

      T. M. Lemos (Tracy Maria Lemos) is a Biblical scholar, Historian, she is also the Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Huron University College and a member of the graduate school faculty at the University of Western Ontario, writes in her footnote 34, that Deut 21:10-14 is in relation to rape:

      “34. For BIBLICAL TEXTS DISCUSSING RAPE, see particularly Gen 19:8; 34; Exod 22:15-16 (Eng., 16-17); DEUT 21:10-14; 22:23-29; and Samuel 13.” (Worship, Women and War: Essays in Honor of Susan Niditch [Edited by John J. Collins, T. M. Lemos, Saul M. Olyan, Brown Judaic Studies 357, 2015], by T. M. Lemos, page 238 (footnote 34))

      Violence and Abuse in Society:

      “Given that ‘the widespread and systematic rape of girls in war zones is increasingly a characteristic of conflict in many parts of the world… and that such violations are often perpetrated in a rule of law vacuum as a result of conflict, there often exists a prevailing culture of impunity for such crimes,’ it would seem that in contrast, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 presents a law that regulates rape on the battlefield. … But one can also view it as CONDONDING RAPE, for the soldier is free to ‘desire’ and ‘take’ an enemy woman in combat.” (Violence and Abuse in Society: Understanding a Global Crisis, [Editor Angela Browne-Miller – Praeger, An Imprint of Abc-Clio, LLC, 2012] by Shin-ich Ishikawa, Satoko Sasagawa, and Cecilia A. Essau, volume 1, page 312)

      Dr. Sandra Jacobs:

      “The Context Of Deuteronomy 21:10-14
      Not Surprisingly, the deuteronomic provision in 21:10-14 is invariably justified by the view that the law of the female captive is located in the context of war, and that during such times a different ethical standard was both acceptable and necessary. This justification – however valid – stil leaves important questions unresolved and does little to diminish the inevitable concern that the humanitarian aspects of deuteronomic law did not extend to prohibiting the physical or secual assault of women. Indeed as Harold Washington (1996: 211) argues, the deuteronomic traditions ‘institute and regulate RAPE so that men’s proprietary sexual access to women is compromised as little as possible. The laws do not interdict sexual violence; rather they stipulate the terms under which a man may commit RAPE, provided he pays reparation to the offended male party. Once again male violence is constrained not of consideration for potential victims, but to secure a more fundamental form of male control.’” (Exodus and Deuteronomy [Editors by Athalya Brenner, Gale A. Yee, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2012], by Sandra Jacobs, page 241)

      Rev. Professor Cheryl Kirk-Duggan:

      “Raymond Brown posits that the foreign WOMAN HAS NO POWER, no voice, and no capacity to refuse or obey. … The LAW DOES NOT INHERENTLY PROTECT THE WOMAN from having to submit to unwanted sexual intercourse. Dt. 21:14 where the man has had his way with her pertains to illicit sex, where the man has VIOLATED THE WOMAN. While the captive wife is a subject at the behest of her captor husband… Carolyn Pressler’s interpretation focuses on the regulation where a male soldier desires marriage with a captive woman after the war, hinting at this LEGISLATION AS RAPE LAW. While Harold C. Washington situates Deut 21 in an ancient context, without dealing with the reader’s response, he does interpret the text AS RAPE LAW.36 (36 Susanne Scholz, Sacred Witness: Rape in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 109-112)” (Precious Memories: Rule of Law in Deuteronomy as Catalyst and Contradiction of Domestic Violence by Cheryl Kirk-Duggan, page 18 – 25)

      Source:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/01/19/what-happened-to-the-woman-in-deuteronomy-2110-14/

      Like

    • The Hebrew word “anah” (or Inna) throughout the Bible is used in instances where women are rape or are forcefully made to have sex (i.e., rape):

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      “10 When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      There are 6 articles on the Hebrew word “anah” here:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/02/2-samuel-1314-and-deuteronomy-2114/

      Like

    • I find it interesting that you rely on people who either. a) aren’t OT scholars, or b) are liberals with presuppostions that you wouldn’t share.

      Like

    • “I find it interesting that you rely on people who either. a) aren’t OT scholars, or b) are liberals with presuppostions that you wouldn’t share.”

      LOL, what a typical Christianesque argument. Don’t refute the claims. Rather, attack the ones making the claims and question their authority or whether they are conservative enough to be listened to.

      So here is another scholarly view. Of course, we know that Cerberus will immediately reject any source which exposes his watered-down version but such is life:

      “We must recognize, however, that though it is important to determine what is meant by ‘anah in Deuteronomy 21:14, rape is only one way of exerting sexual violence. Clearly sexual violence is conveyed in all the quoted instances where ‘anah is used. Thus although there is no specific mention of rape in Deuteronomy 21:14, the word ‘initah implies that the woman’s consent (if any) to intercourse
      was due to her circumstances.”

      And also:

      “Biblically, it seems the captive woman, by virtue of being a captive, has no choice but to go home with her captor. He is only allowed to have intercourse with her after a period of thirty days during which time she stays in his house. Clearly, immediate rape is not allowed. It can be understood that biblically we may be looking at anti-rape legislation for soldiers at war.”

      And it also states the following regarding classical Jewish sources:

      “The Yerushalmi and the Bavli clearly disagree on this issue. As the Bavli is the authoritative Talmud halakhically, it is the Bavli’s position that prevails. Thus Deut. 24: 10ff cannot be understood as anti-rape under current halakhah.”

      And finally, in the conclusion it states:

      “There was no uniform opinion as to when the first intercourse was permitted. The timing varied from immediately after the battle, but in a private place, to not until after thirty days and conversion. Clearly, there was coercion in both cases, whether physical or psychological or both.”

      http://wjudaism.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/wjudaism/article/viewFile/166/277

      So here we have a scholarly article that uses classical Jewish sources to come to the conclusion that Deuteronomy 21:14 allows coercive sexual intercourse between an Israelite soldier and a non-Jewish female prisoner of war.

      And poor Cerberus has now been neutered. Ouch!

      Like

    • I don’t have a problem discussing this. Those quotes are very interesting. But pay careful attention little chicken- your source just confirmed my exact point- that the context disallows the translation flying pie has offered.

      How this law applied in practicality in ancient Israel is a seperate discussion to the lexical argument flying pie offered.

      So thanks Porky, you just roasted the flying pie

      Like

    • “I don’t have a problem discussing this. Those quotes are very interesting. But pay careful attention little chicken- your source just confirmed my exact point- that the context disallows the translation flying pie has offered.”

      LOL, then you are just very deluded Cerbie! Can I call you Cerbie for short? I mean you just got neutered so it’s kind of appropriate. 🙂

      Now pay careful attention little puppy. The source showed that there was COERCION involved. In other words, the woman had absolutely no choice in the matter. She had no choice in seeing her family killed. No choice in being taken as a prisoner for sex. No choice in being married to her captor. Only a neutered Gentile dog from hell would try to sugarcoat all this COERCION and call it “consent”.

      “How this law applied in practicality in ancient Israel is a seperate discussion to the lexical argument flying pie offered.

      So thanks Porky, you just roasted the flying pie”

      You’re just in denial, aren’t you? Excuse me while I laugh…hahahaha!

      Like

  2. Don’t lie. Anah means defile. The fact you need to use the GNT to make your case demonstrates that you have no interest in true exegesis. The GNT is an interpretation (much like yours), not a true translation.

    Like

    • The Hebrew word used in Deuteronomy 21: means RAPE.

      The same word (Anah) is used in 2 Samuel 13:14,

      Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
      “14 However, he wouldn’t listen to her; and since he was stronger than she, he OVERPOWERED HER AND RAPED HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “14 But Amnon refused to listen to her. He was stronger than she was, so he FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM [RAPED/L humiliated her and lay with her].” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and since he was stronger than she was, he OVERPOWERED HER AND RAPED HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “14 But Amnon refused to listen to Tamar. He was stronger than she was, so he FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
      “14 Nevertheless he would not hearken unto her voice; but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; he was too strong for her: he FORCED HER DOWN AND RAPED HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      American Standard Version (ASV)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice; but being stronger than she, he FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
      “14 But he would not listen to her, and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      International Standard Version (ISV)
      “14 But he was unwilling to listen to what she was saying. Since he was stronger than she was, HE FORCED HER INTO HAVING SEX WITH HIM.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      BRG Bible (BRG)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Century Version (NCV)
      “14 But Amnon refused to listen to her. He was stronger than she was, so he FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New King James Version (NKJV)
      “14 However, he would not heed her voice; and being stronger than she, HE FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she was, HE FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she was, HE FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)
      “14 Howbeit, he would not hearken unto her voice, but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Revised Standard Version (RSV)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER, and LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Tree of Life Version (TLV)
      “14 But he was unwilling to listen to her voice, so he overpowered her, FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      World English Bible (WEB)
      “14 However he would not listen to her voice; but being stronger than she, he FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      King James Version (KJV)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Lexham English Bible (LEB)
      “14 But he was not willing to listen to her voice. He was stronger than she, and HE FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Modern English Version (MEV)
      “14 But he refused to listen to her. So, being stronger than her, he OVERPOWERED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice, but being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
      “14 But he refused to listen to her, and because he was stronger than she was, he RAPED HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/02/2-samuel-1314-and-deuteronomy-2114/

      Liked by 1 person

    • The word used in Deuteronomy, Anah clearly means rape.

      The Hebrew word Anah is used in Lamentations 5:11,

      New Living Translation
      “Our enemies RAPE THE WOMEN in Jerusalem and the young girls in all the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      English Standard Version (ESV)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, young women in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, young women in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, girls in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      International Standard Version (ISV)
      “They have RAPED women in Zion, young women in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      NET Bible
      “They RAPED women in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      GOD’S WORD® Translation
      “Women in Zion are RAPED, so are the girls in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Common English Bible (CEB)
      “Women have been RAPED in Zion, young women in Judah’s cities.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
      “They have RAPED the women of Tziyon, virgins in the cities of Y’hudah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      “On Zion and everywhere in Judah our wives and daughters are BEING RAPED.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “The enemy raped the women of Zion. They RAPED THE WOMEN in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “The enemy [L They] ·ABUSED [VIOLATED; RAPED] the women ·of Jerusalem [L in Zion; C the location of the Temple] and the ·girls [L virgins] in the ·cities [towns] of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “Our wives have BEEN RAPED on Mount Zion itself; in every Judean village our daughters have been forced to submit.” – Lamentations 5:11

      International Children’s Bible (ICB)
      “The ENEMY RAPED the women of Jerusalem and the girls in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Lexham English Bible (LEB)
      “They RAPED women in Zion, young women[a] in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Living Bible (TLB)
      “They RAPE the women of Jerusalem and the girls in Judah’s cities.” – Lamentations 5:11

      The Message (MSG)
      “Our wives were RAPED in the streets in Zion, and our virgins in the cities of Judah.” Lamentations 5:11

      Names of God Bible (NOG)
      “Women in Zion are RAPED, so are the girls in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, young women in the cities of Judah…” – Lamentations 5:11

      New English Translation (NET Bible)
      “They RAPED women in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      The Voice (VOICE)
      “In the place where God should be— Zion and the surrounding towns of Judah— Women, young and old alike, are BRUTALLY RAPED and violated.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Source,

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/29/deuteronomy-211014-hebrew-word-anah-means-rape/

      Like

    • Here are more Biblical scholars who know the language better than you and state clearly that the Hebrew word anah means rape.

      Anah is used in Judges 20:5 too, guess how the scholars translate the word

      Amplified Bible (AMP)
      “5 But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me, but instead they RAPED (ANAH) my concubine [so brutally] that she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
      “5 And the men of Gibeah rose against me and beset the house round about me by night; they meant to kill me and they RAPED (ANAH) my concubine, and she is dead.” – Judges 20:5

      Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
      “5 and the men in Giv‘ah attacked me and surrounded the house I was staying in at night. They wanted to kill me, but instead they RAPED my concubine to death.” – Judges 20:5

      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      “5 Later that night, the men of Gibeah surrounded the house. They wanted to kill me, but instead they RAPED and killed my wife.” – Judges 20:5

      Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
      “5 And behold the men of that city in the night beset the house wherein I was, intending to kill me, and abused my wife with an incredible FURY OF LUST, so that at last she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “5 But during the night the men of the city of Gibeah came to the house where I was staying. They surrounded the house, and they wanted to kill me. They RAPED my slave woman, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “5 During the night the ·men [leaders; lords] of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house and wanted to kill me. They FORCED MY SLAVE WOMAN TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS [abused/RAPED my concubine] and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
      “5 The citizens of Gibeah came to attack me. They surrounded the house where I was staying that night. They intended to kill me, but instead, they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “5 The men of Gibeah came to get me and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me; instead they RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
      “5 Citizens of Gibeah ganged up on me and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, but they RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      International Children’s Bible (ICB)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house and wanted to kill me. They RAPED my slave woman. And she died!” – Judges 20:5

      Lexham English Bible (LEB)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Living Bible (TLB)
      “5 “That night the men of Gibeah surrounded the house, planning to kill me, and they RAPED my wife until she was dead.” – Judges 20:5

      The Message (MSG)
      “That night the men of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house, intending to kill me. They GANG-RAPED my concubine and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Names of God Bible (NOG)
      “5 The citizens of Gibeah came to attack me. They surrounded the house where I was staying that night. They intended to kill me, but instead, they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Century Version (NCV)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house and wanted to kill me. They FORCED MY SLAVE WOMAN TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house. They were planning to kill me. They RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New International Version (NIV)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me and surrounded the house, intending to kill me. They RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New International Version – UK (NIVUK)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me and surrounded the house, intending to kill me. They RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Living Translation (NLT)
      “5 That night some of the leading citizens of Gibeah surrounded the house, planning to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she was dead.” – Judges 20:5

      New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
      “5 And the ba’alei haGiv’ah rose against me, and surrounded the bais upon me by lailah, and intended to have murdered me; and my pilegesh have they RAPED, that she is dead.” – Judges 20:5

      Tree of Life Version (TLV)
      “5 Then men of Gibeah rose against me and surrounded the house over me at night. They intended to kill me, but instead, they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      The Voice (VOICE)
      “5 but the leaders of the city came to the house where we were staying and surrounded it, wanting to attack me. They intended to kill me, but they RAPED my mistress until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      World English Bible (WEB)
      “5 The men of Gibeah rose against me, and surrounded the house by night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine, and she is dead.” – Judges 20:5

      Source,

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/30/deuteronomy-2110-14-soldiers-raped-women/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Here are another 3 articles where Bible scholars conclusively state that “anah” (which is used in Deuteronomy 21 too) means rape. Note every other Bible verse where the Hebrew word anah is used scholars translate it as “rape”

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/30/hebrew-word-anah-inna-carries-the-meaning-of-rape/

      And:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/02/2-samuel-1314-and-deuteronomy-2114/

      And:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/30/biblical-law-forces-rapist-to-marry-victim-anahinna/

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, Cerberus is left chasing his tail again! The Christian’s lying spirit is active again.

      Like

    • You’ve just demonstrated a clear case of the etymological fallacy, assuming that because the root Hebrew word is used in one context, it’s meaning is the same across all contexts.

      Until you provide an exegetical argument from the context, I can’t see much relevance with your “articles”

      Like

    • “Note every other Bible verse where the Hebrew word anah is used scholars translate it as “rape”

      That’s demonstrably false

      “You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” (NIV)- over 40 scholars stand behind this translation alone as members of the committee

      “But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.” (ESV)- over 100 scholars stand behind this translation.

      The GNT was translated by one person

      You and pork chop really do love a good dose of hyperbole. It may fool people like the Muslims who frequent this blog, but it really is quite pathetic

      Like

    • Hello there, can you please tell me why the same word is translated differently on different places? I’m just curious….

      Like

    • Because a word’s meaning is dependent on the context of the passage. Many English words have multiple meanings too, depending on the context, e.g “Porky is such a tool”, and, “where is my new work tool”

      Like

    • the verse Paula quoted says that once she becomes damaged goods, she cannot be sold. Why? Because you would be CHEATING your buyer.
      Notice that in other places Jesus ALLOWS a father to SELL his daughter?

      Liked by 1 person

    • And? Muhammad bought and sold slaves all the time. It’s quite possible he was killed by one of those slaves

      Like

    • no probs with jesus allowing hebrews and christians to sell YOUR OWN DAUGHTER?

      When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. —Exodus 21:7-8

      jesus TOLD YOU TO SELL YOUR OWN DAUGHTER

      what does “not please her master” mean? he means after she is SHAGGED …..

      think about you as your daughter getting SHAGGED because you were alright with selling your daughter in the first place.

      jesus said it is alright for you to SELL your daughter and have no problem with the master shagging her .

      Like

    • notice again that she becomes DAMAGED good?

      Like

    • “Because a word’s meaning is dependent on the context of the passage. Many English words have multiple meanings too, depending on the context, e.g “Porky is such a tool”, and, “where is my new work tool””

      LOL, what a typical comment by Cereberus! Full of ignorance!

      Comparing English to Hebrew is very stupid. First of all, generally speaking, just because one language has certain characteristics like “multiple meanings”, it does not mean another language must have that too.

      Secondly, the word “anah” is always used in reference to some sort of sexual coercion. COERCION is implied in the word. Thus, whether is outright rape or whether the captive is simply given no other choice but to consent to having intercourse, it is still COERCION.

      Like

    • “Comparing English to Hebrew is very stupid. First of all, generally speaking, just because one language has certain characteristics like “multiple meanings”, it does not mean another language must have that too.”

      I used an English example for exactly that reason, an example. Nothing more, nothing less. Not sure what your beef is Porky (like why I did there?)- the word under discussion has multiple meanings.

      “Secondly, the word “anah” is always used in reference to some sort of sexual coercion. COERCION is implied in the word. Thus, whether is outright rape or whether the captive is simply given no other choice but to consent to having intercourse, it is still COERCION.”

      Oops, you’ve just exposed yourself now. Why do you pretend to be an exper on everything. I bet you haven’t study an iota of Hebrew ever. Here are but a few examples where anah is used in a non sexual coercion context.

      But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth; I humbled my soul with fasting, And my prayer kept returning to my bosom.

      I know, O LORD , that Your judgments are righteous, And that in faithfulness You have afflicted me.

      Haha, unless you think Yahweh sexually coerces people! You’re a fool, and you’ve just shown everyone why pretending to be an expert on everything will backfire.

      Now, as your heartbeat increases and your blood pressure rises as this sinks in, and you realise that you’ve been exposed as the fraud you are, the rest of us will wait and see how you attempt to weasel out of this one.

      Like

    • Oops, Cerbie appeals to Psalm 119:75 and the word “affliction” and thinks he has proven his point. WRONG! This verse is referring to God’s disciplinary action against sinners. What is the purpose of discipline? Let me quote a Christian source:

      “God uses affliction to PROMPT us to teshuvah – repentance – since He knows that our tendency is to become attached to this world and its deadening comforts. God’s afflictions are also tokens that He cares enough to discipline us as His children (Prov. 3:12)” (http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Meditations/Afflictions/psa119-75.pdf).

      In other words, discipline is supposed to COERCE or PROMPT a person to repentance. That is the point of the psalm and the meaning of “affliction”. That is exactly what I have been saying! In the context of Deut. 21, the woman is COERCED into becoming a prisoner of war and then a wife of the solider who most probably killed her entire family. There is absolutely no way to sneak in some misguided idea of “consent”. Now let’s see how Cerbie tries to weasel his way out of this mess!

      Like

    • So prompting is now coercion? Maybe in Islamic English!! Haha, man you got desperate with your google search. I notice you avoided the other text of humbling? Loser.

      Besides, your first claim was that the word always denoted sexual coercion. Wrong. As I predicted you tried to weasel your way out. We all noticed your deflection. And you still are so arrogant and like to pretend your an expert that you won’t even admit when you are demonstrably wrong.

      Pray tell, did you get a hot flush and anxiety when you realised that you now had to scramble to find some google search to help you? Haha- Did your mum hear you squealing from your bedroom?

      Like

    • LOL Cerbie, it seems your previous neutering has left you deluded and confused!

      What is physical discipline? Is it not the use of physical force to force a person to change their ways? So if that’s the case, then the “affliction” mentioned in the psalm implies coercion. God is coercing the sinner to change his ways with physical punishment, just like a father would discipline a child with the rod as it says in Proverbs.

      The word “prompt” simply means “to cause or bring about”. Coercion is simply prompting with force. Get it now, idiot? I didn’t think I’d have to spell it out for you, but I guess I should have known better! I mean, I am dealing with the intellectual clowns of Christendom here!

      Don’t tell me you are still desperately trying to show that the woman’s consent was required! You already got neutered on that matter.

      Again, the word “anah” implies some sort of coercion. There is no “consent”. Obviously, when I said “sexual coercion”, I meant when it involves sex, you dunce! Psalm 119 does not involve sexual coercion, only physical coercion. But coercion is still implied. Get it now?

      The article I referenced states it very plainly that Deut. 21 was not “anti-rape legislation”. It actually allowed rape, but tried to regulate it.

      Like

    • Here is some more discussion on Deut. 21 in a scholarly article. The following is taken from Caryn Reeder in the “Journal for the Study of the Old Testament”, Vol. 41.3:

      “The captive woman is not given agency within the law; her physical degradation, imposed state of mourning, and forced marriage emphasize her lack of power. The coercive circumstances of war and captivity leave her without choice or protection. She is not, in the end, a wife, but a hybrid creation. Her identity, as it slips between slave and wife, leaves her without the benefits or protection of either status. The captive woman is an object of military violence, a possession to take and use.”

      Cerbie’s neutering continues…

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Poor paulus. Getting slapped around by the brothers again he.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. hmmmmm…Interesting….i have one more question, how strong is the context of the verse that you’ve shown different from the one that “Flying Pir” have shown? I mean i don’t see any major difference between them so that the meaning of the word should change…when i say “difference” i mean something really ummmm…i mean something really “big” or “influential” to change the meaning…thanks for answering mu previous question by the way…

    Like

    • Sorry for the typo, i meant “My” instead of “Mu”….

      Like

    • The difference is consent. Flying pie is suggesting that the text says the woman had been raped. Other interpreters see the context as defilement, in the sense of an ancient Jewish context, from a consenting relationship. When you read the context it’s pretty clear that flying pie is flying high

      When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

      Like

    • I totally get your point but some of the commentaries that guy named Flying Pir have shown talks about unwanted marriage with the captives….

      Like

    • Which i guess leads to unwanted or in other words non consensual sex…

      Like

    • If i’m right of course…

      Like

    • Thanks for trying to help me understand this by the way mr Paulus…i really appreciate it

      Like

    • paulus , barry jones said it means rape :

      14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

      Such a Christian translation committee would surely not have rendered this verse to clearly connote rape, if as Holding would insist, the evidence against the rape interpretation was obvious and powerful.
      There are contextual reasons to support the rape interpretation: 1) like a rapist, the guy who wrote this law shows no concern whatsoever for whether the woman desires to be married, the rite is to begin if the man desires to marry her; 2) the law is allowing for a man who was part of the army who just killed that woman’s family, descreated her idols and carried her off as prisoner of war, to marry her, so it is safe to assume the author is allowing the man to become married to, and thus have sex with the very type of woman most unlikely to ever have sexual feelings for the man, thus further implying lack of consent on her part.

      There are grammatical reasons to support the rape interpretation: In v. 14, the standard translation is “you have humbled her”, with the Hebrew anah laying behind “humbled”. This anah appears in the following passages where the context clearly indicates “rape”:
      2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force (Hebrew: anah). (Gen. 34:2 NAU)

      24 “Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish (Hebrew: anah) them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man.” (Jdg. 19:24 NAU)

      11 When she brought them to him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.”
      12 But she answered him, “No, my brother, do not violate (Hebrew: anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing!

      13 “As for me, where could I get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.”

      14 However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated (Hebrew: anah) her and lay with her. (2 Sam. 13:11-14 NAU)

      7 “They have treated father and mother lightly within you. The alien they have oppressed in your midst; the fatherless and the widow they have wronged in you.

      8 “You have despised My holy things and profaned My sabbaths.

      9 “Slanderous men have been in you for the purpose of shedding blood, and in you they have eaten at the mountain shrines. In your midst they have committed acts of lewdness.

      10 “In you they have uncovered their fathers’ nakedness; in you they have humbled (Hebrew: anah) her who was unclean in her menstrual impurity.

      11 “One has committed abomination with his neighbor’s wife and another has lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law. And another in you has humbled his sister, his father’s daughter.
      (Ezek. 22:7-11 NAU)

      10 Our skin has become as hot as an oven, Because of the burning heat of famine.
      11 They ravished (Hebrew: anah) the women in Zion, The virgins in the cities of Judah.
      12 Princes were hung by their hands; Elders were not respected. (Lam. 5:10-12 NAU)
      The standard lexicons say anah can refer to rape:

      Koehler – Baumgartner lexicon:

      —2. to do violence to: a) to rape a woman Gn 342 2S 1312.14.22.32 Ju 1924 205 Lam 511; to abuse Ezk 2210f; bעִנָּה מִשְׁפָּט ( to violate justice, bend, bow Jb 3723; c( to overpower someone Ju 165f. 19 ï nif. 3. כֹּחַ to break Ps 10224, to cram someone’s feet into fetters 10518 (:: W. Thomas JTS 16 (1965 !):444f);
      Holladay lexicon;

      1. oppress, make s.one feel his dependence Gn 1513 & oft.; humiliate Nu 2424, (of God) humble, subdue 1K 1139; ±innâ mišp¹‰ violate justice Jb 3723; humiliate (a woman by forced marriage) Dt 2114; ±innâ nafšô, humble onesf., mortify onesf. (by fasting) Lv 1629; — 2. violate, rape (a woman) Gn 342; — 3. overpower Ju 165f; force s.one into (b®) s.thg Ps 10518.
      Harris says in his Theological Wordbook:
      This verb is applied to the forcing of a woman including a captive woman later rejected (Deut 21:14) or cases of pre-marital relations (Deut 22:29; Gen 34:2). It can be a capital offence (Deut 22:24).
      The rape interpretation of Deut. 21:14 may also be sustained from the larger context of general Hebrew morality, which was barbaric to say the least, in which case we do better to pause before blindly assuming the ancient Hebrews felt the same way about sex as modern white Christian evangelicals. Hebrew patriarchs felt burning to death was appropriate:

      24 Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry.” Then Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned!” (Gen. 38:24 NAU)

      Moses commands the burning death of a priest’s daughter if she has pre-marital sex:
      9 ‘Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire. (Lev. 21:9 NAU)

      God’s will for Achan, expressed before Achan was executed, was to have him and his children burned to death for stealing that wedge of gold, whether Joshua brought about their death by burning or by stoning is irrelevant to the specific desire of God that the burning be the mode of death.
      15 ‘It shall be that the one who is taken with the things under the ban shall be burned with fire, he and all that belongs to him, because he has transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he has committed a disgraceful thing in Israel.'” (Jos. 7:15 NAU)
      Holding continues:

      “The strictures humanize the woman and undermine the assumptions which normalized the harsher treatment. In that sense, it was an effort to reform as well as legislate morality.”
      If Holding means that the Hebrew God’s approval of rape was an attempt to reform morality, then yes. Rape is immoral unless it is approved by Mr. Bible-god.

      https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/answer-to-jp-holdings-wheel-of-stupid.html

      Like

    • “I totally get your point but some of the commentaries that guy named Flying Pir have shown talks about unwanted marriage with the captives….”

      Of course. If you search hard enough you could find multiple interpretations.

      What flying pie didn’t tell you is that his sources are either a) not even Hebrew scholars, or, b) liberal scholars.

      He certainly wouldn’t accept liberal interpretations of the Koran but expects us to accept them for the bible

      Like

    • LOL, there is no “consent” here.

      Shaad, don’t let this guy deceive you. Imagine a Canaanite woman whose entire family has been killed, not because her people attacked the Israelites but because the Israelites were allegedly given a command by God to exterminate her people. She is captured and brought home. Do you honestly think that she would “consent” to being the wife of a man who was part of an army which believed it had a divine injunction to commit genocide? She had no say in the matter. Therefore, how can it be consensual?

      Like

    • Porky- it was the ANE culture. Your crocodile tears should really be shed for poor Aisha who was forced to have sex with a 50 something yr old man when she was 9. Unless you think she gave consent? Did she consent to marriage at 6? Don’t think so

      The context of deut 21 makes it clear. Flying pie you will notice never offers a contextual argument for rape, just an etymological fallacy and selective quotes from liberal scholarship.

      Like

    • “Porky- it was the ANE culture. Your crocodile tears should really be shed for poor Aisha who was forced to have sex with a 50 something yr old man when she was 9. Unless you think she gave consent? Did she consent to marriage at 6? Don’t think so

      The context of deut 21 makes it clear. Flying pie you will notice never offers a contextual argument for rape, just an etymological fallacy and selective quotes from liberal scholarship.”

      Cerbie, just because it was ANE culture, how does that excuse your god allowing the forced marriage of a Gentile woman? Have you no shame?

      As is typical of you lying morons, once you get cornered, you lash out at Islam and try to change the subject. We are not talking about our mother Aisha (ra). We are talking about your god and why he allowed Israelite soldiers to forcefully marry a Gentile woman and then let her go once he got bored of her? That is the context of Deut. 21 you lying canine. You deceitfully tried to make it look as if there was “consent” when there isn’t. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      Like

  5. “think about you as your daughter getting SHAGGED because you were alright with selling your daughter in the first place.

    jesus said it is alright for you to SELL your daughter and have no problem with the master shagging her .”

    He’s her husband idiot. Who else is supposed to shag her?

    Like

  6. “the verse Paula quoted says that once she becomes damaged goods, she cannot be sold. Why? Because you would be CHEATING your buyer.”

    Hogwash.

    This speaks against the woman being a slave. Otherwise her price would just go down and she would be sold as secondhand.

    The fact that she cannot be sold means she never was a slave in the first place.

    It protects her from being taken simply to be sold as a slave because she has a high market value as a beautiful woman.

    Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. LOL,

    Like

    • “14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      “This speaks against the woman being a slave. Otherwise her price would just go down and she would be sold as secondhand”.

      she was a captured woman.
      most likely NEVER to see her family again
      she was already spoiled by the hebrew

      this is CAPTURED non-jew who was raped .

      in the bible WHAT is the value of the non-jewish raped woman? it is VALUELESS.

      slave is MONEY maker and it has to have value in it. that’s the whole point of SELLING slaves.

      who would PURCHASE even a raped and valueless non-jewish woman in israelite society?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “The fact that she cannot be sold means she never was a slave in the first place.”

      unless the youngster wasn’t raped, she could be sold on the condition that she was not raped. if she was not raped, where is evidence that she could not be sold?


      It protects her from being taken simply to be sold as a slave because she has a high market value as a be
      autiful woman.”

      most likely she would end up prostituting her self if she could not find any work.
      she receives no protection at all.
      she is released .
      the text says nothing about her welfare and if she CAN’T attach her self to another man, she would have no choice but to prostitute herself.

      Like

  7. “no probs with jesus allowing hebrews and christians to sell YOUR OWN DAUGHTER?”

    Muslims don’t give their daughters away for nothing you self-righteous hypocrite. They would be the last to give someone a freebie.

    Never heard of a dowry wuthering man?

    Like

    • 7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[a] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt faithlessly with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”

      if he deals FAIRLY with her she could be sold again. jesus ALLOWS you to SELL the fathers SOLD daughter if she is dealt with fairly i.e jesus has no problem with passing around slave women. your loving jesus allowed girls to be passed around.

      Like

    • Ignoramus,

      Muslim fathers are not allowed to give away their daughter without their consent, dowry or not dowry. The daughter must consent to being married. Where does it say in Deuteronomy that when a father sells his daughter, it was only with her consent?

      Like

    • i thought i had misinterpreted the biblical text i quoted above. after getting it read by a person who can read hebrew, here is what the response was

      Bart October 6, 2017
      If she’s not pleasing to her master, she can be bought out of slavery but not sold to foreigners. If she is pleasing, apparently she can be.

      so there is no way i could have misinterpreted the text. now what is interesting is the way the NIV translates it.

      Like

  8. @Paulus

    “The difference is consent.”

    Are you trying to tell us that a woman would consent to sleeping with a man who killed all male members of her family lol?

    Like

    • And yet you have no problem with that when it’s Muhammad marrying one of the widows who’s entire family has jus been wiped out in war by his Muslim followers.

      Why the double standards, dude?

      Like

    • Samaritan,

      I assume you are referring to our mother Safiyyah bint Huyay ibn Akhtab? Well, if so, then you need to remember that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) actually proposed to her for marriage. She became his wife of her own free will:

      “The Messenger of Allah proposed to her and kindly offered that if she were to accept Islaam, he would set her free. She accepted this offer and they were married. Safiyah (may Allah be pleased with her) was now blessed to be one of the Mother of the Faithful” (http://idealmuslimah.com/personalities/sahaabiyaat/194-safiyah-bint-huyay-ibn-akhtab.html).

      In addition, her father had consistently shown his hostility to Muhammad (pbuh) and his followers. At every opportunity, he tried to destroy the Muslims, and also conspired on a number of occasions to kill the Prophet himself. How else would one expect such a person to be dealt with?

      Like

    • More so than a 9 yr old

      Remember, this is the ANE culture under discussion

      Like

    • Porky- it was conditional. She had to become a Muslim first, to then be set free. What was the alternative? Slaughtered like her family.

      Nice attempt at propoganda.

      This is all besides the point, anyway, at least for Christians. Unlike you, we don’t emulate these ancient practices. When was the last time you slaughtered a family and forcibly married the daughter, just like your perfect example?

      Like

    • You are so stupid Samaritan. I have showed the double standards on the other side. I am not criticising the Bible.

      Like

    • It is very typical for Paulus to make offensive comments in order to distract from the problems in his arguments.

      And when nothing else works he is going “but hey, Christians today accept democracy independent of what’s in their scriptures but Muslims are the problem”. This is a secular argument you can use in a political discussion but not in a religious one.
      We are not talking about ancient practices but divine laws. If you reject them you will also be rejecting God and Jesus.

      Like

    • Paulus,

      Can you believe these idiotic Muslims?

      Muhammed wipes out the woman’s entire family then presents her with an ultimatum. Accept Islam or be enslaved/killed.

      Also using that total fool Rider’s logic against him. What woman would willingly consent to sleeping/marrying with a man who killed all male members of her family lol?

      Like

    • “Porky- it was conditional. She had to become a Muslim first, to then be set free. What was the alternative? Slaughtered like her family.

      Nice attempt at propoganda.

      This is all besides the point, anyway, at least for Christians. Unlike you, we don’t emulate these ancient practices. When was the last time you slaughtered a family and forcibly married the daughter, just like your perfect example?”

      LOL, Cerbie keeps humiliating himself. You know Cerbie, there comes a time when you just need to bite your tongue in order to protect yourself from making an even bigger fool of yourself.

      Islamic law prohibits the killing of women and children. So, if Safiyyah (ra) had rejected the marriage proposal and to convert to Islam, she would NOT have been killed. You’re confusing your Bible with the Prophet’s Sunnah!

      Nice attempt at lying. But you should have learned by now that you will be exposed. 😉

      As I told your fellow clown Coco the dancing monkey, read Ezekiel you moron! According to Ezekiel, the law of Moses and the temple sacrificial system stands forever. That directly contradicts your NT.

      Moreover, what difference does it make if it was an ancient practice? How does that excuse your god and your scripture? Why were they no different from any other culture in that time? Why did your god allow for forced marriage?

      In contrast, Islam is completely against forced marriage. So no, we don’t emulate those “ancient practices”. Our religion abolished such evil practices. Yours did not.

      Like

    • Rider,

      Can you believe this idiotic Christian? Bad Samaritan needs to get his head on straight.

      “Paulus,

      Can you believe these idiotic Muslims?

      Muhammed wipes out the woman’s entire family then presents her with an ultimatum. Accept Islam or be enslaved/killed.

      Also using that total fool Rider’s logic against him. What woman would willingly consent to sleeping/marrying with a man who killed all male members of her family lol?”

      LOL, so Bad Samaritan reverts to the tu quoque fallacy, and a bad one at that! As I said to your fellow idiot Cerbie, Islam does not allow forced conversion or the killing of women and children. Your god allowed such barbarity. Our mother Safiyyah willingly accepted the marriage proposal. The poor women in Deut. 21 were given no such choice. Who are you to complain about Islam, you idiot? BAD SAMARITAN! BAD!

      Like

    • QB,

      On Islamic killing of women:

      Muhammad ordered the assassination of Asma bint Marwan.

      (Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).”
      Bukhari Vol 004, book 052, number 256

      Abu Huraira and Zaid b Khalid al-Juhani reported that one of the desert tribes came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I beg of you in the name of Allah that you pronounce judgment about me according to the Book of Allah. The second claimant who was wiser than him said: Well, decide amongst us according to the Book of Allah, but permit me (to say something). Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon ham) said: Say. He said: My son was a servant in the house of this person and he committed adultery with his wife. I was informed that my son deserved stoning to death (as punishment for this offence). I gave one hundred goats and a slave girl as ransom for this. I asked the scholars (if this could serve as an expiation for this offence). They informed me that my son deserved one hundred lathes and exile for one year. and this woman deserved stoning (as she was married). Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life. I will decide between you according to the Book of Allah. The slave-girl and the goats should be given back, and your son is to be punished with one hundred lashes and exile for one year. And, O Unais (b. Zuhaq al-Aslami), go to this woman in the morning, and if she makes a confession, then stone her. He (the narrator) said: He went to her in the morning and she made a confession. And Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) made pronouncement about her and she was stoned to death.
      Bukhari 017, 4209

      On forced conversion in Islam:

      Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited.
      Ibn Kathir v.4 p.133, Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959 –

      Don’t waste our time with your taqiyya.

      Like

    • Lol, Bad Samaritan needs to do some better research rather than copy and paste from JihadWatch or the like.

      Bad Samaritan! Bad!

      1. The hadith about the assassination of the poetess Asma is not authentic and no scholar of repute considers it as such. Your fake scholars over at JihadWatch and Answering-Islam have embarrassed themselves many times appealing to this hadith.

      2. The hadith about night raids does not say that it is okay to deliberately target women and children but given the options in war, sometimes night attacks were necessary even though the risk of civilian casualties was high. There was no intentional killing of women and children, unlike in your blood-soaked book.

      3. The hadith about stoning is regarding adultery, not war.

      4. LOL, now we know that Bad Samaritan simply copied from a website and pasted it here. He even provided the reference in Ibn Kathir and Ibn Ishaq! LOL!!!

      First, notice how the deceiver used ellipses “…” In other words, there is something hidden here. Why was it hidden, I wonder? Hmmm, let’s see:

      “Certain tribes still remained who had not accepted Islam, so the apostle sent Khalid to the Banu al-Harith in Najran, with orders to give them three days to embrace Islam, and thereafter to subdue them if they refused. Khalid sent out mounted parties in every direction to invite the people to Islam, shouting, ‘Make profession of Islam and you will be saved!’ The people responded to the call and entered the religion, and Khalid remained among them to teach them the doctrines of Islam, the Koran, and the
      ordinances of the apostle of Allah. After a time, Khalid brought a deputation of the Banu al-Harith to meet the apostle at Medina.”

      So, we see that the order was to offer them two choices: conversion or being subdued. In other words, it was NOT “convert or die”.

      Moreover, this was only regarding certain tribes. Part of the mission of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was to completely remove idolatry from Arabia. However, Jews and Christians were allowed to settle in certain areas outside of the Hijaz region in exchange for jizyah. They were allowed to practice their religions.

      Also, this was in the aftermath of the Battle of the Trench, when most of the tribes had formed a coalition to kill every single Muslim and destroy Islam. When they lost, what did they expect would happen? They would be left alone? Perhaps only in Bad Samaritan’s mind. Of course, in his diseased mind, it was okay for his god to order the Israelites to kill babies, but it was not okay for Muhammad (pbuh) against his enemies and subdue them. LOL, the ugly face of Christian hypocrisy is exposed yet again! No wonder people are leaving your religion by the MILLIONS. Almost 100 million apostates leave Christianity every YEAR! I wonder why?

      5. Taqiyya! LOL!! Enough said…

      Like

  9. Assmus,

    1. if a hebrew rapes a hebrew, he got to marry the raped item

    2. if a hebrew rapes a non-hebrew youngster , he got to let her go. what if he decides to sell her instead of raping her ? can he sell a beautiful foreigner and make himself a bit of money ? two tempting offers. one is that she is virgin and the next is money for beautiful young girl (7-10 years old ? )

    3. if hebrew rapes the women, he is not allowed to make a sale, because the item is DAMAGED ( Since you forced her…) .
    do fellow hebrews easily purchase damaged items , Assmus?

    4. since the hebrew killed of her family, he can’t pay off her father for damaging his daughter. since she is completely CLIPPED and shaved, she would no longer be in contact with her subdued family which was not clipped and shaved.


    Otherwise her price would just go down and she would be sold as secondhand.”

    how do you know that assmus? she was damaged. which slaves get damaged before they are sold off, assmus?

    a hebrew has to marry his raped item , even if she HATES the rapist.

    jesus told you hearts were hard back then, but divorce was not allowed for raped item .

    Like

  10. I would support banning Paulus. Ultimately he has only secular or void arguments. He only searches for a little point he can make and the keeps hanging on it until the end. There is no substance to anything he says.
    When confronted he starts insulting Islam. Please ban him.

    Liked by 1 person

    • so you bring up the idea of sexual consent mockingly and then complain when confronted with the idea that Muhammad clearly did not have the consent of a child whom he married?

      In other words, you don’t like being shamed for inconsistency. Muslims hate being shamed

      Like

    • P.S Paul bans me all the time. As does Ijaz. This normally lasts a week or two and then they remove the block.

      Bet you didn’t think your idols here were playing those types of games.

      Like

    • Don’t feed the frustrated troll

      Like

    • You still don’t get it. You brought up the idea of consent and I talked about the inconsistency. That is also what the video by Yahya here talks about.

      I don’t care for secular and feminist definitions of sexual consent. You are the ones using it to criticise Islam.

      Liked by 1 person

    • They’re not playing games. They simply have a better resistance for listening to you and discussing. I prefer to not step into debates with people who make void arguments and are offensive.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Rider,

      By your logic Mr-Heathcliff and Burhanuddin deserve a ban too.

      Like

  11. “Muslim fathers are not allowed to give away their daughter without their consent, dowry or not dowry. The daughter must consent to being married.”

    Faiz. By your logic you are saying Aisha consented to being married at 6. What an evil and horrendous idea.

    Or more likely, your inherent secular upbringing made you say this before realising how it fits within islam

    Like

    • Paulus

      Where did Ayisha(RA) said she was not consent with her marriage? Mary the Mother of your God, married a 90 year old Joseph at 12 years. What an evil and horrendous idea for a small girl to marry an old man Joseph without consent and gave birth to a Almighty God in a womb of a woman considered dirty in the Bible.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Do you have any thing other than apocryphal sources to substantiate that claim about Mary and Joseph?

      Like

    • paulus you shameless moron, the deut 21 rape is clearly implied

      http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0309089216661171

      The law of the captive woman in Deut. 21.10-14 is alternately identified as a law that protects or even favors the captive, or as a law that enshrines wartime rape. This article argues for the latter assessment on the basis of three lines of evidence: the vocabulary and syntax of the law; intertextual connections with Genesis 34; and comparative analysis with contemporary situations of wartime rape. The final line of evidence also allows for the interpretation of the law from the perspective of the captive woman herself.

      //////
      i am not going to share with you information on this article, but the evidence for rape is too strong .

      Like

    • paulis,. honestly man, the journal is really ripping your bs.
      paulis, jesus allowed the rape of beautiful women. jesus allowed men to LUST over beautiful women.
      all those ugly women and okay looking weren’t even considered. jesus singled out beautiful women for FORCEFUL rape. you should be sickened by jesus. sickened .

      Like

    • Heathcliff, you really are a typical Muhammadan, aren’t you? Idiot.

      Like

    • And you are a typical crosstian, aren’t you? Idiot.

      Like

    • Crosstian? Witty.

      Guess that makes you a Moonlim? 🌙

      Like

    • To bad the pathetic moon ‘argument’ is laughed at by even many xtians.
      Now be a good pagan boy and go worship your mangod loser.

      Like

    • Your Allah was a pagan moon god, dude. Do you think that moon symbol sitting atop your mosque is there for no reason?

      Sorry but your religion is steeped in paganism.

      Like

    • Intellect.

      She was 6. She would have no idea what was happening and probably just wanted to play with her dolls.

      Now, since you’ve set the criteria of “where did Aisha say she didn’t consent”, I’d like to ask you, where did the women described in deut 21, say they didn’t consent? Remember, this is your criteria.

      I’m disgusted you allow little girls to be married. You should be jailed.

      Like

    • You’re an idiot Cerbie. Just face it. How does it feel to be neutered? I must say, it doesn’t sound pleasant.

      If you are so concerned about how our mother Aisha felt, then why not consult Islamic sources?

      “Did she want to be married to him?
      Yes. She tells us this was exactly what she wanted all along. The hadiths (narrations by Ayshah) are very clear about all details and must be read in order to fully appreciate the fullness and completeness of their relationship together.

      How did she reply to her father’s offer to the prophet, peace and blessings be upon him?
      She was very shy and said her silence was understood by her father that she was indeed, accepting the proposal for marriage. This is mentioned by her, along with other important information for Muslims to know about marriage proposals, dowry and proper ways to approach the father or guardian of a woman with the topic of marriage” (http://www.islamswomen.com/marriage/ayshah_and_muhammad.php).

      But this is again unrelated to this topic. You are simply trying to divert from the embarrassment of admitting that your Bible allowed Israelite soldiers to forcefully marry a captive Gentile. Just admit it and save whatever little dignity you have left!

      Like

    • LOL, I didn’t think idiots like Bad Samaritan were still stuck on the absurd “moongod” myth! Maybe do some better research so you don’t make fool of youself!

      The moon was not a symbol of Islam until the Ottomans adopted it.

      And here are the examples of pagan mythology in the Bible yet again:

      1. Isaiah 13:21 refers to mythical beast known as “satyrs” which were common in Greek mythology.

      2. Daniel 7:9ff incorporates Canaanite pagan imagery to describe as an aged man with white hair. Scholars have known for a long time that this myth is copied from pagan beliefs about the deities El and Baal (https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/the-book-of-daniel/).

      3. Revelation 12 borrows from pagan imagery to describe the “woman clothed with the sun” and the “red dragon” which tried to devour her child. Scholars see parallels between this “vision” and the pagan stories about the birth of the sun-god Apollo (https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-book-of-revelation/#_ednref95).

      Liked by 1 person

  12. rape is either a crime in the law of moses or a reward for jihad
    Mohammed told his boys not to practice coitus interrruptus.

    Like

    • Ignoramus is either an idiot or a liar. I actually think he is both.

      Coercive sex is allowed by your god in deut. 21. There is nothing your lying spirit can do about it now. 😉

      Like

    • jesus told you that RAPING a woman was halaal, but what had to make sure she was beautiful. jesus told you that you don’t even have to MARRY the raped item. jesus allowed muta with beautiful slave women. it was all on the condition of how could she was in the bedroom .jesus is one sick puppy.

      Like

  13. “if he deals FAIRLY with her she could be sold again. jesus ALLOWS you to SELL the fathers SOLD daughter if she is dealt with fairly i.e jesus has no problem with passing around slave women. your loving jesus allowed girls to be passed around.”

    the selling is giving in marriage. not to be confused with the slave market where the wares of the “right hand” are bought and sold.

    any woman who has lost her virginity cannot be “sold” because she cannot symbolize the spiritual purity of Israel in it’s covenant relationship to God.

    If the marriage is not consumated the woman can be redeemed and given again in marriage.

    In this context the woman is not “passed around.”

    Like

    • “the selling is giving in marriage.”

      jesus told you that if she pleaseth her master, she can be sold to FOREIGNERS .
      her master is going to give her in marriage ? her father sold her as a SLAVE who would have a LOWER status than a free woman.

      “any woman who has lost her virginity cannot be “sold” because she cannot symbolize the spiritual purity of Israel in it’s covenant relationship to God.”

      where did yhwh tell you this? when she is passed to foreigners, who cares about “spiritual purity” ?
      her status REMAINS as a SLAVE for the very fact that she could be passed around in the future.
      that’s why the text identifies her not as a woman who reached status of free woman after she married her master, but as property which could be shared with non-jews.

      Like

    • ASSmus, where does jesus not allow you to PASS foreigner beautiful woman to one male to another? it is possible that woman would be in muta relationship from one soldier to other soldier and bear “banoo muta” from soldeir to soldier.

      think about it. she gets released. jesus’ hebrew soldiers catches on to her, finds her displeasing and she is passed again. see? jesus was all for muta.
      there would be NO law against jesus’ hebrews playing “pass the parcel”
      the sexual availability for the beautiful woman would always be there.
      the israeli soldier would know that he marries her on the basis of finding her pleasing. if she is not, she would be released for the next soldier .

      nice pass the parcel, isn’t it?

      Like

    • Assmus,

      quote :
      10 When you go to war against your enemies, the Lord will •help you defeat them [give them into your hands] so you will take them captive. 11 If you see a beautiful woman among the captives and are attracted to [desire; fall in love with] her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home, where she must shave her head and cut her nails 13 and change the clothes she was wearing when you captured her.

      notice this is a selection process. there is ABSOLUTELY no negation of raping women who are NOT pretty.
      it is possible that DURING war the children and women were being raped. jesus NEVER disallowed RAPING women and children WHILE destroying a city.

      jesus allowed his hebrews to rape .

      Like

    • Wow this is going to far in bs-ing now. The Muslims should also be more cautious with the claims. Always remember how disgusting and evil these Christians are before making any claims about scriptures. Because everybody should try to not be like them. Therefore the clarification:

      1 Islam does not allow that a father sells his children into slavery like the Pashtun tribal codex. The Torah allows selling one’s young daughter as a bride. The condition is that she becomes a wife and not just a normal slave. So the Torah does not allow to sell children into slavery but it allows taking money for the marriage if the father is really in need.

      “any woman who has lost her virginity cannot be “sold” because she cannot symbolize the spiritual purity of Israel in it’s covenant relationship to God.”

      You just made that up. Only a young (virgin) girl can be sold into marriage because the motivation behind this rule is a father not being able to provide for his family. Therefore he sells his daughter to a man for marriage. She lives with him like a daughter and is cared for. When she reaches puberty the guy may marry her.

      2 In Islam a father can give his daughter (virgin only) to someone into marriage. But no money can be taken for it.

      3 A husband cannot give his wife to another man nor can a father give his non-virgin daughter to a man into marriage like the piece of shit claimed.

      4 Concubinage is allowed in the Torah. Therefore your

      “not to be confused with the slave market where the wares of the “right hand” are bought and sold”

      is worthless since it is something allowed in the Torah you criticise.

      Like

  14. “jesus allowed his hebrews to rape .”

    its against the law of moses.

    if the foreign captive is divorced she is a free agent and cannot be sold. she is not an islamic chattel prisoner.

    also the stranger, the fatherless and the widow had to be provided for from the public purse in Israel so there was no pressure on a divorced woman to resort to prostitution, which was also against the law.

    Like


    • also the stranger, the fatherless and the widow had to be provided for from the public purse in Israel so there was no pressure on a divorced woman to resort to prostitution, which was also against the law.”

      apple and oranges. the woman is sent away WITH nothing. COMPARE to israelite divorcee. the woman is VICTIM of RAPE , shave and DIVORCE. the woman would be VICTIM of other hebrews. she has NOT received the full status of israelite woman. you are lying . if she could not find another hebrew to find her TEMPORARILY pleasing , she is good for washing clothes , selling her self into SLAVERY or prostituting her self.

      She was better off being KILLED .

      Like

  15. “notice this is a selection process. there is ABSOLUTELY no negation of raping women who are NOT pretty.”

    rape does not have anything to do with it.

    law of moses forbids forcing a woman to have sex.

    deut 22 v 25 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:

    Like

  16. “her master is going to give her in marriage ? her father sold her as a SLAVE who would have a LOWER status than a free woman.”

    in what way? she has the same rights:

    exodus 21 v 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

    Like

    • quote :
      Bart October 6, 2017
      If she’s not pleasing to her master, she can be bought out of slavery but not sold to foreigners. If she is pleasing, apparently she can be.

      does she have the same rights?

      Like

  17. “You’re exposed again as a dunce.”

    King James Bible
    One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

    Like

  18. erAsSmus,
    the women who is shaved and raped is released after she is found not to be pleasing. there is absolutely nothing in the hebrew bible which says that the broken and abused item was given ANYTHING which would protect her . compare the RELEASE of an ISRAELI woman VS the RELEASE of the RAPED non-jewish woman.
    you lied about her receiving protection.

    there is no proof that she has RECEIVED the full status of a jewish woman . she is a marked item and for any soldier of war she could be taken until she is no longer pleasing and passed on again and again. jesus ALLOWED you this cycle.

    Like

  19. rape is against the law of moses. it follows from this that no woman can be forced to have sex or marry against her will.

    Like

    • Keep lying Ignoramus. You dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. The law was different for Jews and Gentiles.

      Like

    • Liar. There is NOTHING IN THE LAW OF MOSES WHICH FORBID THE RAPE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN DURING AND AFTER WAR. you are a liar. WHY is it that the article written this year says that this is exactly what the Hebrews must have done? They savaged cities, drove people out like the scape goat without water and food.

      I am not even making this up, the experts who read Hebrew clearly say that jesus HAD NO problem with rape during WAR and after war. What would be the sin in rape? Why couldn’t a woman be RAPED and then killed?

      Like

  20. ” for any soldier of war she could be taken until she is no longer pleasing and passed on again and again. ”

    that can happen in any marriage, theoretically.

    Like

    • If the Hebrew of your jebus did not find her satisfying, she would have no say. She would be making muta . Otherwise she would be forced to sell herself in slavery or prostitution, she would have no choice. She was better of being killed.

      Like

  21. “quote :
    Bart October 6, 2017
    If she’s not pleasing to her master, she can be bought out of slavery but not sold to foreigners. If she is pleasing, apparently she can be.

    does she have the same rights?”

    You mean professor ignoramus who makes money from dunces like you. lol

    8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

    If she pleases him she stays with him as his wife.

    Like

    • Ass-mus

      Quote:
      When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, s

      With omission

      “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, s”

      I don’t know Hebrew and I don’t know what the conditional is implying, but it sure looks like the fact that if she is pleasing, then she has worth in being SOLD to non-Jews to take .

      I am quoting the nrsv .

      Like

  22. “Keep lying Ignoramus. You dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. The law was different for Jews and Gentiles.”

    ok wannabe nightraider, lets bring Paul in to the discussion.

    romans 2:

    12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

    the Jews and the Gentiles are under the same law cleverclogs.

    Like

  23. “Mohammed told his boys not to practice coitus interrruptus.”

    while they were raping married women with their husbands looking on, before they got their heads cut off.

    Like

  24. “Otherwise she would be forced to sell herself in slavery or prostitution, she would have no choice. She was better of being killed.”

    Not in Israel. They had a good social net for widows, fatherless and the stranger.

    Long before any Muslims came along:

    Zechariah 7:10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the …
    … Don’t oppress widows, orphans, foreigners, and poor people. … And oppress not the widow,
    nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you …
    //biblehub.com/zechariah/7-10.htm – 18k

    Deuteronomy 14:29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or …
    … Foreigners, orphans, and widows who live in your cities may come to eat … no other
    part nor possession with thee, and the stranger and the fatherless and the …
    //biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-29.htm – 21k

    Deuteronomy 16:14 Be joyful at your festival–you, your sons and …
    … and female slaves, the Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows who live in … and your
    maidservant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the …
    //biblehub.com/deuteronomy/16-14.htm – 19k

    Psalm 94:6 They slay the widow and the foreigner; they murder the …
    … They kill widows and foreigners, and they murder orphans. … They slay
    the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. …
    //biblehub.com/psalms/94-6.htm – 16k

    Deuteronomy 10:18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the …
    … He makes sure orphans and widows receive justice. … He executes justice for the fatherless
    and widow, and loves the stranger, in giving him food and clothing …

    //biblehub.com/deuteronomy/10-18.htm – 18k
    Malachi 3:5 “So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick …
    … and adulterers, and false swearers, and them that oppress the hireling in his wages;
    the widows, and the fatherless: and oppress the stranger, and have not …
    //biblehub.com/malachi/3-5.htm – 21k

    Deuteronomy 16:11 And rejoice before the LORD your God at the …
    … who live in your cities, the foreigners, orphans, and widows who live … and the Levite
    that is within thy gates, and the stranger and the fatherless, and the …
    //biblehub.com/deuteronomy/16-11.htm – 21k

    Deuteronomy 27:19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the …
    … “Whoever deprives foreigners, orphans, or widows of justice will be cursed … Cursed
    be he that perverts the justice due the stranger, fatherless, and widow. …
    //biblehub.com/deuteronomy/27-19.htm – 18k

    Deuteronomy 26:12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of …
    … you have stored to the Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows in your … tithing,
    and have given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the …
    //biblehub.com/deuteronomy/26-12.htm – 20k

    Jeremiah 7:6 if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless …
    … Suppose you do not oppress foreigners, orphans, and widows, or kill anyone in this
    place. … If you oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow …
    //biblehub.com/jeremiah/7-6.htm – 18k

    Ezekiel 22:7 In you they have treated father and mother with …
    … They oppress orphans and widows in you … in the midst of you have they dealt by oppression
    with the stranger: in you have they wronged the fatherless and the …
    //biblehub.com/ezekiel/22-7.htm – 18k

    Jeremiah 22:3 This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and …
    … Don’t mistreat foreigners, orphans, or widows, and don’t oppress them. … oppressor:
    and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the …
    //biblehub.com/jeremiah/22-3.htm – 20k

    Deuteronomy 26:13 Then say to the LORD your God: “I have removed …
    … I distributed it to the Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows as you … have given
    them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to …
    //biblehub.com/deuteronomy/26-13.htm – 21k

    Deuteronomy 24:21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do …
    … Leave some for foreigners, orphans, and widows. … your vineyard, you shall not glean
    it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for …
    //biblehub.com/deuteronomy/24-21.htm – 18k

    Deuteronomy 24:20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not …
    … Leave some for foreigners, orphans, and widows. … tree, you shall not go over the boughs
    again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the …

    Like

    • how many non-jewish captive divorcees were GIVEN CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE?

      biblical writers cleary know that RAPE occurs during yhwistic invasions

      Their infants will be dashed to pieces
      before their eyes;
      their houses will be plundered,
      and their wives ravished.

      thats rape there.

      the rapist hebrew is not told to pay anyone to LOOK after the RAPED and released woman. who will he pay? she will never see her parents again.

      why did a HEBREW give a israelite woman DIVORCE certificate if

      “they had a good social net for widows, fatherless and the stranger.”

      Like

    • “Copan rightly points out that divorce made a woman vulnerable to poverty and shame; she would have to remarry in order
      to find shelter, provision, and dignity”

      why did copan think this if as you say
      “They had a good social net for widows, fatherless and the stranger”

      so you are a liar for jesus, right?

      Like

    • why are you a liar for jesus? why would divorcee have to go back to her FATHER if there was “welfare system” ?
      why would divorced need to be ISSUED with certificate of divorce if there was a welfare system?

      what did the RAPED and HUMILIATED non-jewish woman have to go back to?

      she was not ISSUED with certificate of divorce.

      maybe she wasn’t even married? she was RAPED and then released after she was not pleasing enough.

      Like

  25. “are you saying rape in Hebrew brothal is preferable ?”

    I seem to detect a whiff of anti-semitism around here, I wonder where it comes from.

    Like

  26. “how many non-jewish captive divorcees were GIVEN CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE?”

    all of them

    Like

  27. “Their infants will be dashed to pieces
    before their eyes;
    their houses will be plundered,
    and their wives ravished.

    thats rape there.”

    If it happened It happened in a world that is under Allah’s control according to you. He is supposed to be Lord of all Worlds according to you. Maybe all except the real one.

    Like

  28. “you liar, she is sent empty handed. why did you lie?”

    prove it.

    Like

  29. “you agree at least that according in yhwistic wars RAPEs take place???

    so DURING war, the hebrews of jesus RAPED women? yes?”

    sorry to disappoint you but your favorite scapegoat the hebrews were not involved.

    It was the Medes and Persians booting out the Babylonians.

    Like

  30. “during war there is no forbidance of raping children and women. i said WAR, you talk about a secluded field.”

    the principle applies under any circumstances, including war

    you use war as an excuse to do evil

    you have laws for war, laws for men and women, laws for muslim and non-muslim. we believe in the unitary nature of humanity. in this respect you are not unitarian.

    Like

  31. if the soldier is fighting he is fighting, if he is raping a woman he is not fighting a war. except in your peverse view of things.

    Like

  32. if the non-israelite womans clan surrendered all they had to do was pay tribute. the males were only killed as a punishment when they refused to surrender.

    10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

    if they did not surrender and the males were killed the females needed men to carry on their lives. So Jehovah allowed the male israelites to take them as wives as an exceptional provision of mercy to the defeated tribe. Normally the males were not allowed to marry non-israelites.

    Did Mohammed offer terms of peace before he attacked the Jews? If he did what were they? That they must become Muslims?

    Like

    • Did Joshua offer peace before he and the Israelites wiped out everyone?
      What a joke!

      O and he let the Banu Qurayza tribe alone even after they betrayed him. And for showing that mercy, they did this to him:
      Narrated Abd-Allah ibn Umar: Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet AGAIN…
      Sahih Bukhari 5:59:362

      Sa’ad is the one who decided what would happen to that tribe and he punished them according to their own scripture:
      Deuteronomy 20: 12-14

      “And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee”

      Sa’ad gave them an even lighter punishment than in Deuteronomy 20: 12-14.
      So what’s the problem exactly???

      Like

    • As far as i know, there was an agreement that the Jewish tribes had broken right? I’ve read that when the muslims were busy preparing for battle (or maybe they were already in battle) against the Quraysh army for the defense of Medina, the jewish tribes did some kind of betrayal or something….

      Like

    • Correct me if i’m wrong, women were killed in Numbers

      Like

    • The Banu Qurayza tribe broke the treaty twice!
      Between Joshua/Israelites and the Amalekites there were exactly 0 treaties.

      Like

  33. Erasmus, Sorry my comment was incomplete i accidentally clicked on send, my bad…

    Well so what i wanted to ask, weren’t women killed in Numbers 31:7-18? If that’s the case, this means there’s some kind of law for warfare right?

    Like

  34. Infact there are many examples in the OT which may seem disturbing even in the context of warfare which may point out that there’s a specific law for war…

    Like

  35. erASSmus,

    if we assume that a hebrew who slaughtered the amalekite women raped her before he slaughtered her, what did the law of moses say for this ravaging?

    where does the law of moses forbid RAPING a non-jew in the time of war ? 50 shekels was the price of a raped israelite woman, what was the rate for the raped non-jew in the time of war????

    so hebrew of jesus was raping woman before he put her to death, she could scream if she wanted to , but she was gonna die any way.

    quote :
    f it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13 and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14 You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.

    jesos explicitly told hebrew to “eat” the spoils

    واما النساء والاطفال والبهائم وكل ما في المدينة كل غنيمتها فتغتنمها لنفسك وتأكل غنيمة

    it literally says in arabic aswell that the jesus told the hebrews to EAT their spoils .

    lol sickening shit, isn’t it?

    Like

  36. erASSmus,

    if we assume that a hebrew who slaughtered the amalekite women raped her before he slaughtered her, what did the law of moses say for this ravaging?

    where does the law of moses forbid RAPING a non-jew in the time of war ? 50 shekels was the price of a raped israelite woman, what was the rate for the raped non-jew in the time of war????

    so hebrew of jesus was raping woman before he put her to death, she could scream if she wanted to , but she was gonna die any way.

    quote :
    f it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13 and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14 You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.

    jesos explicitly told hebrew to “eat” the spoils

    واما النساء والاطفال والبهائم وكل ما في المدينة كل غنيمتها فتغتنمها لنفسك وتأكل غنيمة

    it literally says in arabic aswell that the jesus told the hebrews to EAT their spoils .

    sickening , isn’t it?

    “eating” clearly seems to imply sexually . WOMEN and children were raped and the law of moses does not disallow it. how much “eating ” took place before hebrew of jesus PUT away pregnant non-jewish woman DURING war?

    Like

    • actually the idea seems to be DEVOURING and jesus has no problem with devouring women and children who are innocent. when hebrew of yhwh PUT to the sword pregnant non-jewish woman DURING war, what penalty did law of moses give? 50 shekels ?

      Like

Trackbacks

  1. What, They Believe JESUS Ordered Moses in Numbers 31 To Kill Women and Boys and Spare the Virgins? | kokicat

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: