[
Replying to post 17 by JehovahsWitness]
The only challenge issued to the claims I made is that children not being able to procreate is the reason that war captives would not be wed until the time they can, and in fact you go on to claim that they would be costly if they were. But how would they be any more costly as captives than as brides? Hebrew men were permitted multiple wives so how could marrying them before child bearing age have any compromise on the other wives who could and would be providing children? If the women children were given to the men, what were the men to do with them before they became adults?
We agree that it would be bad if they were simply used for the purpose of sex without marriage but if they were married you haven't offered any meaningful challenge as to whether or not they would be married off and raped by their captors. Simply allowing for soldiers to possess "women children" is issue enough for most to confidently assert that many of these "women children" would in fact be raped at least, possibly married to their captors, even if it is not written in law, this happens in today's time, it is a certainty that it happened back then too.
Are we in agreement that owning and marrying captives has no consideration in law for the captives' consent?
Here's some sources on the subject, I do understand that it is a large issue and there are many men who did not have sex with children but it is obvious that it didn't really matter, women and their consent or their age was just unimportant in Israelite society, Same reason rapists were expected to marry their victims without any concern for the victims consent. Fathers could sell their daughters and in fact did so in order for marriage as a standard.
“Grooms could marry at the age of 18-20 (or older) with a young girl, twelve years old, who had “reached puberty.�… The ideal was to marry off girls while still minors, since they constituted an economic burden…� (Rubin, N. (2008). Time and Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash. Brighton, Massachusetts: Academic Studies Press. p. 16)
“There is less evidence regarding female age at marriage . As noted , the overwhelming impression given in the legal sources is that fathers betrothed their daughters while they were still minors .�
SOURCE: Michael L. Satlow in ‘Jewish Marriage in Antiquity’,pg.107
“Conversely, if a girl is three years and one day, she can be betrothed by sexual intercourse.� He continues writing, “Obviously, the Mishnah does not say that a woman should be betrothed at the age of three or hat this is a standard age to do so. It is, rather, mentioned as the minimal age.� (Teugels, L. M. (2004). Bible and Midras: The Story of ‘The Wooing of Rebekah’ (Gen. 24). Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan. pp. 218-220)
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/ ... arriage-2/
That last website goes into the linguistics. I will happily admit that I have no intellectual capacity to debate Hebrew linguistics but I will defer to scholars and articles with scholastic sources an I believe that website has good footing, I will happily bow out if you can find some reasonable grounds to discredit these sources and quotes though. It reads plainly in an English translation that these "women children" captives would be subject to at minimum rape and some into forced marriage (lifetime of rape). Scholars seem to posit that the Hebrew is even more specific suggesting that they would absolutely be used for sexual gratification of the soldiers, probably without marriage. I know soldiers of this day and age from every country and every religion and culture rape people on a pretty regular basis both in their own military and certainly in the countries they are occupying. I doubt it would be better back in the day.
Religion feels to me a little like a Nigerian Prince scam. The "offer" is illegitimate, the "request" is unreasonable and the source is dubious, in fact, Nigeria doesn't even have a royal family.