Attempting to defend “keep virgin girls for yourselves�

[Zzyzx]

.
Attempting to defend “keep virgin girls for yourselves� (supposedly a command from Moses -- representing God)

Numbers 31:17"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

Of course there were no sexual connotations. The intent was to be NICE to the little virgin girls – after killing their mothers, sisters, brothers, fathers, etc. Who would ever even think that there were sexual motivations?

Is anyone actually THAT naïve and gullible?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

The why the distinction between virgin and non virgin?
Why mention this at all?
-all the best

Hi KenRU,
These were war slaves and a male would grow up to be a warrior and want to avenge his father. A non-virgin girl would be married and would teach her children to seek revenge upon her dead husband.

Only virgin, that is, the youngest girls could be properly assimilated and loyal to their new family and tribe and increase the tribe's strength when they finally married.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

The why the distinction between virgin and non virgin?


Why mention this at all?

-all the best

Hi,

I don't understand the question, are you talking the distinction made for taking captives or of the different punishments under the law?

JW

Why does numbers specifically signal out virgin women?

Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

It is not saying: Take only for yourselves those unmarried women, for you shall marry them and make them whole in the eye of the lord (or some such phraseology).

Why? Because the context is quite clear - and consistent.

It says to take those that are untouched by man.

The words "spare for yourselves" much like "take� and “know�, are, in this context, without a doubt, sexual in nature.

-all the best

[JehovahsWitness]

Why does numbers specifically signal out virgin women?

Ttruscott gave an excellent answer (see post 11 by ttruscott). He that says "virgin girl" says "young girl" that will presumably more easily be assimulated into Hebrew society and whose children will create an emotional bond/loyalty for her that would protect the Israelites from the development of a revenge seeking sub-culture.

Marrying an older woman, whose husband and male children you ("you" as in your army not nessarily the individual himself) has killed is a very good way to ensure you will be murdered in your sleep. A young girl is more likely to accept her lot and emotionally invest in her children.

JW





RELATED POSTS

Can the expression "spare for yourselfs" be understood to be a euphemism for "have sex with"?
viewtopic.php?p=814434#p814434

Where Israelite soldiers permitted to rape their captives?
viewtopic.php?p=356474#p356474

Why does numbers specifically single out young virgin girls?
viewtopic.php?p=814419#p814419

Were Hebrew soldiers allowed to keep sex slaves?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p814373

did the Mosaic law support sex slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=815539#p815539

Did the Mosaic Law prohibit sex outside of marriage?
viewtopic.php?p=404057#p404057

What future could a young captive girl expect?
viewtopic.php?p=815772#p815772

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ...WAR CAPTIVES

[JehovahsWitness]

Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, .spare for yourselves."

The words "spare for yourselves" much like "take" and "know", are, in this context, without a doubt, sexual in nature.

Can the expression "spare for yourselfs" be understood to be a euphemism for "have sex with"?

No. The Israelites soldiers were also on occassions told to "spare" or "take" animals for themselves; does this automatically imply they were keeping them for sex?

The girls were selected by whether they had had sex or not to filter out their age and avoid taking mothers (who would probably seek revenge for their killed husband and children). Indeed if "spare for yourselves" were a euphemism for "have sex with" we may well ask why limit the choice to virgins at all since older women can also be raped or kept for sexual purposes? In any case "spare" or "spare for yourselves" is never an expression in the bible equated with sexual intercourse.

Refering to only choosing girls that have "not known (Heb yada)" a man is obviously an allusion to sex but in no way an indication that the girls were to be used as "sex slaves" (see previous posts on the Hebrew Law).




RELATED POSTS

Can the expression "spare for yourselfs" be understood to be a euphemism for "have sex with"?
viewtopic.php?p=814434#p814434

Where Israelite soldiers permitted to rape their captives?
viewtopic.php?p=356474#p356474

Why does numbers specifically single out young virgin girls?
viewtopic.php?p=814419#p814419

Were Hebrew soldiers allowed to keep sex slaves?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p814373

did the Mosaic law support sex slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=815539#p815539

Did the Mosaic Law prohibit sex outside of marriage?
viewtopic.php?p=404057#p404057

What future could a young captive girl expect?
viewtopic.php?p=815772#p815772

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ...WAR CAPTIVES

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 6 by Tired of the Nonsense]

After marrying her, sure. But what he could not do was deny her the rights and protections that she was guaranteed under law as explained in the two posts above. Nothing essentially then in her status or that of her children would differ from that of any Hebrew wife or children (also viewed as the man's "property")*.


*being viewed as "property" is somewhat difficult concept for the 21st century reader, but the fact is ALL wives (and children) were thus viewed. Indeed, the English word for husband alluded historically to the notion of "ownership"/"management" (of property). That the slave (or the wife) was spoken of as the man's "property" in no way indicates abuse or mistreatment, much less "sex slavery" rather that the woman came under the man's protection and had a permanent place in his household.

JW

Leviticus 25:
[44] Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
[45] Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
[46] And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Neither by requirement nor implication does Leviticus indicate that the owner of non Jewish slaves must marry his slaves if he has sex with them. Marriage is nowhere mentioned. Leviticus does indicate that both the women and "the children of the strangers," who are taken from "the heathen that are round about you," "shall be your possession."

If you find that concept offensive then I suspect that was Z's original point.

[bluethread]

Neither by requirement nor implication does Leviticus indicate that the owner of non Jewish slaves must marry his slave if he has sex with them. Marriage is nowhere mentioned. Leviticus does indicate that both the women and "the children of the strangers," who are taken from "the heathen that are round about you," "shall be your possession."

If you find that concept offensive then I suspect that was Z's original point.

Well if you are going to play that game, there is no direct commandment to marry anybody with which one has had sex, except in the case of rape. So, are you, rabbi ToN, saying that marriage is required only in cases of rape? If that is the case, it is interesting that there are so many laws related to marriage, ie. the child born out of wedlock(mamzer) is not permitted in the Temple.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you find that concept offensive then I suspect that was Z's original point.

The point has been well made . . . some will attempt to defend atrocities if done by "God's people" or by "God said to" . . .

Of course those fine upstanding warriors would be expected to treat the young virgin prisoners with utmost piety.

If "Atheists" did the same thing(s) Apologists would point out how terrible they were.

Even a "they did it too" defense is phony for those who claim to be special "God's people" and to have a high moral code.

Apologists may feel "between a rock and a hard place" because if they admit that the story was atrocious that is a chink in the armor of God -- and an admission that all is not upstanding and moral in God land.

[bluethread]

.

If you find that concept offensive then I suspect that was Z's original point.

The point has been well made . . . some will attempt to defend atrocities if done by "God's people" or by "God said to" . . .

Of course those fine upstanding warriors would be expected to treat the young virgin prisoners with utmost piety.

If "Atheists" did the same thing(s) Apologists would point out how terrible they were.

Even a "they did it too" defense is phony for those who claim to be special "God's people" and to have a high moral code.

Apologists may feel "between a rock and a hard place" because if they admit that the story was atrocious that is a chink in the armor of God -- and an admission that all is not upstanding and moral in God land.

There is absolutely no justification for this slanderous conjecture. What is not conjecture is that you and ToN have repeatedly chastised Christians for not having specific instructions in the Scriptures supporting their points. However, when presented with specific instructions, you are free to make statements regarding HaTorah based entirely on your presumption that some of the men of Israel would engage in something that is not even referred to, except in derisive terms, ie. Shechem.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Neither by requirement nor implication does Leviticus indicate that the owner of non Jewish slaves must marry his slave if he has sex with them. Marriage is nowhere mentioned. Leviticus does indicate that both the women and "the children of the strangers," who are taken from "the heathen that are round about you," "shall be your possession."

If you find that concept offensive then I suspect that was Z's original point.

Well if you are going to play that game, there is no direct commandment to marry anybody with which one has had sex, except in the case of rape. So, are you, rabbi ToN, saying that marriage is required only in cases of rape? If that is the case, it is interesting that there are so many laws related to marriage, ie. the child born out of wedlock(mamzer) is not permitted in the Temple.

Marriage is an individual choice. I have been married to the same woman for 45 years. And that was our choice. We could just as easily have decided to stay together and not to get married, and our lives would have turned out exactly the same.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.

If you find that concept offensive then I suspect that was Z's original point.

The point has been well made . . . some will attempt to defend atrocities if done by "God's people" or by "God said to" . . .

Of course those fine upstanding warriors would be expected to treat the young virgin prisoners with utmost piety.

If "Atheists" did the same thing(s) Apologists would point out how terrible they were.

Even a "they did it too" defense is phony for those who claim to be special "God's people" and to have a high moral code.

Apologists may feel "between a rock and a hard place" because if they admit that the story was atrocious that is a chink in the armor of God -- and an admission that all is not upstanding and moral in God land.

There is absolutely no justification for this slanderous conjecture. What is not conjecture is that you and ToN have repeatedly chastised Christians for not having specific instructions in the Scriptures supporting their points. However, when presented with specific instructions, you are free to make statements regarding HaTorah based entirely on your presumption that some of the men of Israel would engage in something that is not even referred to, except in derisive terms, ie. Shechem.

There are passages in the Bible the not only strain the modern concept of morality, but totally obliterate it. Personally defending the methodical murder of mothers and children and babies as sometimes necessary and even justified is in a sense no different from simply climbing into a barrel of tar and covering one's self with feathers. For life. Once such a position has been taken, it cannot be un-taken. The obvious course of action should be to repudiate any and all Biblical rationalization for commiting cold blooded heartless murder, by renouncing all defense of it. Many Christians would sooner embrace cruel heartless murder as justified, than to criticize their religious documents however. Instead they protest vociferously at the injustice of being tarred and feathered for supporting genocide. If you buy the entire Bible, bag and baggage, as the righteous word of the one true living God, then you are stuck with the things that are written there.

On the other hand, Christians often simply make up beliefs, find them appealing, and declare them to necessarily be valid. This is a process I call making it up as you go along, and it leads directly to Christian mythology. It's true by popular consent. Which is fine, in the sense that everyone has a right to believe whatever beliefs serve to sustain them and make them feel all warm and fuzzy. If warm and fuzzy is what you were searching for. And yes, of course you should reasonably expect to be called out on a claim which you have simply made up and declared to be true.

But these are two separate offences, you see.