(March 21, 2018 at 12:16 pm)alpha male Wrote:(March 21, 2018 at 11:19 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't need to go that far to draw the same conclusion. It's clear that they differentiated between women who had lain with a man and those who hadn't because the former were not considered suitable for marriage (if I'm not mistaken, taking them as wives would be adultery). So the distinction clearly indicates that they were taking them to be wives. Whether it's enslave and immediately fuck, or enslave and later fuck is irrelevant; they were being taken for the purpose of being fucked, plain and simple.
I take it you haven't both been married and just been fucked, because there's a huge difference between the two. In my case a 30-year and 3-child difference.
The women taken, even if of marriageable age, couldn't be touched for 30 days. They lived in the prospective husband's house during this time. After 30 days, they could be taken as wives, with full rights as wives. And they wouldn't have to burn any of their babies alive, which was common in the culture they were taken out of. If it didn't work out they could be divorced, but upon divorce they were free and could not be treated as slaves.
Deut 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. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
Here's the Strong's entry on "woman" from verse 11. Click on the links to other uses in the OT (Mostly translated as wife or woman) and you'll see it doesn't refer to children.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...H802&t=KJV
Holy crap. Really?
Dude, a "woman" to the men of antiquity was considered upon their first period. Don't try to claim your book of mythology is better on the subject. That verse is condoning FORCED MARRIAGE in any case by virtue of the words "take them captive". And just like black slavery really doesn't make it that much better if you keep them for a while then let them go. Taking someone "captive" in the first place, today is called KIDNAPPING.
This verse is justifying kidnapping and rape.
