After our debate regarding Muhammad’s prophetic claims (available
here), Osama Abdallah,
of the Answering Christianity website(*),
has tried to do some post-debate damage-control. For instance, in order to justify some of
the perverted and sick practices of Islam which were raised in the debate, specifically
in regard to pedophilia, Osama has greatly intensified his attack on the Holy Bible for
certain statements and commands relating to women. Osama has posted the following text
on his entry page, and at the top of nearly every page on his site:
1- Young girls in the Bible and Talmud, as young as 3, being married off:
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has
slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a
man."
In the Torah (In the Book of Numbers in the Bible), after the
conquest of Midian and Moab, and the great venereal plague, Moses (peace be on him) ordered
that all the women "who have known a man" be killed but that "all the young
girls, who have not known a man by lying with him" be kept alive for the Israelites.
Since the only females left fit for marriage and wholesome
relations were prepubescent virgins, a Jewish law concerning child marriage was enacted. That
law is found in the Babylonian Talmud:
"Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A maiden
aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'
Mishnah: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day
may be betrothed, subject to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse.
Gemara: Our Rabbis taught:
'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "
Is the GOD of Israel a pedophile?
Quick side Note:
Numbers 31:35-40 "[From
the captives of war] 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.......of which the
tribute for the LORD was 32 [among them were virgin girls]."
Even though GOD Almighty's share of the 32 virgin girls is
metaphoric, meaning that He didn't come down and have sex with them, but if any wants to call
Prophet Muhammad a pedophile or womanizer for marrying (his best friend's
daughter with both her parents' approval) a young girl and marrying multiple women throughout his
life, then he should not only call his Biblical Prophets as such, but also the GOD of
Israel Himself!
Anyway continuing with the above Talmudic quotes, today, the Jewish law for marriage,
sets the age of consent for females at 11. (Consent is only one way of marriage) I do not know
if modern Jewish law still allows (in theory) betrothal by intercourse as it was practiced in
ancient times. ...
By the way, please visit: X-Rated
Pornography in the Bible. The Bible literally says that women's
vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".
Also visit: Fathers sticking
their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible.
2- Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls to other men in the Bible:
Exodus 21:7-11
7. "If a man sells his daughter as a
female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8. "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for
himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell
her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9. "If he designates her for his son [Note:
"his son" means that the master is either her father's age or even much older!],
he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10. "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or
her conjugal rights.
11. "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing,
without payment of money.
First of all, did the daughter have any choice to be sold off by her father, married off
by her master to either himself or his son? No!
Also, the fact that the master can either marry her
or marry her off to his son, means that MOST LIKELY, SHE IS HIS
DAUGHTER'S AGE and younger than his son!! So he's probably at least 30+
years older than her. Yet, he himself (her father's age or even MUCH older) can marry
her.
Again, please visit: X-Rated
Pornography in the Bible. The Bible literally
says that women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".
Also visit: Fathers sticking
their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible.
Also, the fact that there is no AGE
LIMIT to how girls in the Bible were sold off and married off to other
men, WITHOUT ANY CHOICE, who were much much older than them as also the case with the Biblical
Prophets who married 100s of wives each clearly proves the hypocrisy
of some Christians who attack Islam through Aisha's very young age, while they clearly ignore
the same fact in their own Bible. ...
RESPONSE:
The following biblical passage perfectly describes Osama:
"To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not
believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted."
Titus 1:15 NIV
Since Osama has been influenced by Islam to see things in either a grossly distorted or
sexually perverted manner, it is little wonder that Osama reads things that are nowhere
stated, or even implied, into the texts.
Before we present a careful exegesis of the abused Biblical passages of Exodus 21 and
Numbers 31, we need to make some additional observations regarding the above cited
charges.
As it is his custom, Osama makes wild claims about the Bible. Let’s first turn
to the last of the above quoted statements: "the fact that ...
as also the case with the Biblical Prophets who married 100s of wives each
..." Really? THE Biblical prophets married HUNDREDS of wives EACH? By speaking
not only of "some", but of "THE Biblical Prophets (plural and definite
article!)", and adding "each", Osama tries to create the impression in
the minds of the readers that most (if not all) of the prophets in the Bible had HUNDREDS
(note again the plural!) of wives. Osama has apparently lost all concern for being truthful
in his statements.
The only example he could validly give is Solomon, and even here his example backfires
against him:
"Now King Solomon loved many foreign women: the daughter of Pharaoh, and Moabite,
Ammonite, E'domite, Sido'nian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the
LORD had said to the people of Israel, ‘You shall not enter into marriage with them,
neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their
gods’; Solomon clung to these in love. He had seven hundred wives, princesses,
and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For when Solomon was
old his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to
the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after
Ash'toreth the goddess of the Sido'nians, and after Milcom the abomination of the
Ammonites. So Solomon DID WHAT WAS EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD, and did
not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done. Then Solomon built a high
place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the
Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who
burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. And the LORD was angry with Solomon,
because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to
him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after
other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD commanded. Therefore the LORD said to
Solomon, ‘Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my
statutes which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give
it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days,
but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the
kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for
the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.’" 1 Kings 11:1-13 RSV
God was very angry that Solomon had married many foreign wives, which caused him to
turn away from the pure worship of the true God. Now, since this is the only Biblical
example of a person marrying hundreds of wives, and since these wives led the heart of
the king away from his pure devotion to Yahweh, does Osama really feel comfortable in
appealing to this event as a comparison with Muhammad’s marriages, specifically sex
with a minor? Does Osama really want to accept the implications of this passage upon his
own prophet, that since God was angry with Solomon for violating his explicit command
not to marry multiple foreign wives, since they would lead him away from the fear
of Yahweh, this means that Allah was also displeased with Muhammad for marrying so many
wives, since it caused him to be more preoccupied with his carnal pleasures than with
the worship of Allah?
In fact, Muhammad’s marriages to multiple women, although not being a direct
violation of the OT commandment, does violate Muhammad’s own standards:
And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who
seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so
many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more
likely that ye will not do injustice. S. 4:3 Pickthall
Allah, Muhammad’s god, permitted Muslims to marry up to four wives. And yet
Muhammad, according to the traditions, had 11 wives at one time:
Narrated Qatada:
Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during
the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the
Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was
given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that
Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5,
Number 268)
Thus, Muhammad was inconsistent since he failed to live up to his own moral standards,
which he claimed were given to him by his god. Either that is the case, or Allah exists
to please Muhammad, since he allows the latter to satisfy his carnal cravings, even if
it means breaking an express command. It is little wonder that Aisha could say:
Narrated Aisha:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to
Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But
when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of
them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on
you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily)." (33.51) I said
(to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and
desires." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60,
Number 311)
Osama’s claim is formulated so that the reader gets the impression that all the
prophets in the Bible married hundreds of wives. Clearly, this polemical formulation is
chosen to deceive, and so we challenge Osama:
Please produce the biblical references showing that the prophets of God had hundreds of
wives.
Osama’s title (1- Young girls in the Bible and Talmud, as young as 3,
being married off) claims that, IN THE BIBLE, girls of age three are married off. This
is false. He has not given ANY supporting evidence for this claim. He quotes from the Talmud,
but the Talmud is not part of the Holy Bible, and it never was. Osama’s attack
on the Holy Bible is slander, false testimony, and a plain lie. At this point, we have no
intention or interest in discussing the Talmud, but suffice it to say, it is not the inspired
Word of God, and simply doesn’t establish morality or ethics for Christian believers.
The Talmud is a collection of opinions of Jewish rabbis, and is useful in helping us to
understand the historical situation of the Jews after the NT era, and some of the
practices that were being observed during the time of Christ, but its teachings and
standards are subject to the written Word of God. Therefore, when the Talmud clearly
contradicts or misinterprets an express biblical command, it is to be rejected by all
Bible-believing Christians.
Again, in order to attack the Bible, Osama presents a statement taken from the
Talmud, and then claims that this is whatthe Biblesays. To
do this even once is a very bad error. However, Osama uses this particular deception
systematically. Twice in the above quoted piece (and in many other places as well), he
urges people to visit his earlier article, Fathers sticking their fingers into their
daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible. However, in the article itself,
there is not even one reference to the Bible that supports this claim.
In his first section quoted above, Osama makes a further unsupported and unproven
assumption:
Since the only females left fit for marriage and wholesome relations were prepubescent
virgins, a Jewish law concerning child marriage was enacted. That law is found in the
Babylonian Talmud:
He assumes that every girl had intercourse immediately after reaching puberty,
i.e. there did not exist any mature virgins. This is hardly a reasonable assumption.
Further, he assumes that the Israelites were supposed to have sex with all of
those women and girls immediately. Nothing in the text even remotely suggests this
erroneous interpretation. It is more likely that those girls were given time to grow up
until they reached normal marriage age. Finally, without giving any evidence, Osama
connects this particular statement of the Talmud with the relevant biblical passage.
Is this really the proper context? Is that the reason for the Talmudic statement?
In the second section there is yet another paragraph of unwarranted assumptions:
Also, the fact that the master can either marry her or marry her off to his son,
means that MOST LIKELY, SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER'S AGE and younger than his son!!
So he's probably at least 30+ years older than her. Yet, he himself (her father's
age or even MUCH older) can marry her.
Osama assumes that the girl is sold into some kind of ‘black box’ without
a clue whom she will end up with, as if the father would give his daughter away, not
knowing whom she is going to be married to. This is very unlikely, as we will see below.
We agree that the text does not explicitly preclude that the husband may be substantially
older than the new wife, but we never made an argument against a young woman marrying
an older man per se. There is a huge difference between a 60-year old man
marrying a 20-year old woman, and a 50-year old man marrying a 10-year old girl, even
though the age difference between them is the same in both examples. Given Osama's
emphasis on "three year old girls", and that these passages, according to Osama, are supposed
to offset the problem of 53-year old Muhammad marrying 9-year old Aisha, he seems to
assume that (a) the girl is very young, and (b) the marriage (and subsequently sexual
relations) will take place immediately. In all of this, Osama argues essentially from
silence. He merely displays his vivid imaginations, but does not present what the text
actually says. More will be said about Osama's above argument later in this rebuttal.
Christian writer, philosopher, and apologist, Glenn Miller, has written two superb
articles dispelling the gross myths and misrepresentations of what Exodus 21:7-11 and
Numbers 31 actually imply. So instead of reinventing the wheel, we will simply quote the
relevant parts of the paper to dispel Osama’s misreading and distortion of the texts.
Regarding Exodus 21:7-11, Miller writes:
Many of God's commands to Israel about
treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's
experience of harsh slavery in Egypt (which generally DID conform to
the "western" paradigm described above). She is told to remember her
slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many,
many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12;
24.18, 19). Just to cite a couple:
Six days you shall labor and do all
your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you
shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your
manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor
the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest,
as you do. 15 Remember that you were
slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a
mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Deut 5.13f
When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again.
Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember
that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. Deut 24.21
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a
woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must
let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed.
14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress.
Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember
that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I
give you this command today. Deut 15.15 note: this is a
'standard' case of debt-slavery, and is different from cases of 'selling a
daughter' for a dowry-less marriage--a la Exodus 21--discussed below.
[ ... ]
Pushback: "Whoa, whoa! Can we not
gloss/skip over that last point! I am reeeely bothered by that 'your wife stays
here' clause…Can you explain how the various exit scenarios looked, in the case
of a Hebrew debt-slave's going free? And is it true that a man could sell his
daughter into slavery without any HOPE of freedom for her????
Sure, pal--I'll be glad to (but you'll regret asking me to interrupt the flow
of this, with my typically verbose response ... smile)
Here are the two passages, both in Exodus 21 (translation from the Jewish
Publication Society version):
"When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six
years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came
single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him.
If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her
children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone."
Exodus 21:2-4
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall
not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master,
who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have
the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he
designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as is the practice with free
maidens. If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food,
her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he fails her in these three ways, she
shall go free, without payment." Exodus 21:7-11
The way I want to approach this is to sketch out the marriage process background
(rel. to OT and some ANE aspects), and map these scenarios onto them.
First, the process of getting married (for normal folks).
1. The parents of two families (or head-of-household, often the father, but not
exclusively--Hagar 'took a wife for Ishmael out of Egypt', Gen 21,21) discuss and
agree on a marriage/union between their respective son/daughter, in the context of
a union of families--not of individuals. (The daughter, depending
on her age, might have been a participant in these discussions, of course):
2. This mohar was once thought of (and still called in the literature) as a
'bride price', but more recently it is understood as a 'bride-present' (since sometimes
the bride got to keep it herself). It is a payment made by the father of the groom, to
the father of the bride:
"Customs varied over time and place, but the process of marriage included at
least four stages: (1) the engagement, (2) payments by the families of both
the bride (dowry) and the groom (bride-price), (3) the bride's
move to her father-in-law's house, and (4) sexual intercourse." [OT:DLAM, 133]
"Second, a father arranged for the marriage of his daughter by finding a suitable
husband for her and negotiating the terms of the marriage." [HI:MFBW, 55]
"When parents deemed their child to be approaching marriageable age, the father
of the groom would contact the parents of the potential spouse and negotiate the terms
of the marriage, specifically the nature and size of the mohar,
"marriage present" ..." [HI:MFBW, 57]
"If the groom died or had a change of heart, his father could insist that the
bride be given to one of the groom's brothers if one were available and of age. That is,
the bride married into her husband's family--she did not marry an individual."
[OT:DLAM, 134f]
"The control of marriages and offspring was also patriarchal. A woman’s
father decided whom she could marry (Exod 22:17), although there is evidence that
daughters were consulted (cf. Gen 24:55-58)." ["Patriarchy As An Evil
That God Tolerated: Analysis And Implications For The Authority Of Scripture",
Guenther Haas, Jnl of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3, Sept 1995]
"The contract described in the Laws of
Eshnunna was between the two families, commonly represented by the fathers.
For the groom's family, the contract concerned payment of the bride-price,
which was a considerable sum of silver in the Old Babylonian period. The bride-price
was an act of good faith, insuring the grooms' right to the bride." [OT:DLAM, 133]
"While some have interpreted the mohar as a purchase price, it is
preferable to see it as a deposit delivered to the
parents of the bride to promote the stability of the marriage
and to strengthen the links between the families of those being married." [HI:MFBW, 57]
"The father of the girl negotiated a bride-price with the groom or groom's father,
with an expected amount the baseline, the moharhabbetulot, set at
fifty shekels, but with no upper limit." [HI:HALOT,:2:1007; Note:
this amount in the ANE at that time would have been the value of 5 years of a hired person's
labor.]
3. However, depending on the circumstances of the families, this bride-price (and
counterpart, the dowry of the girl) could be paid in installments, in non-cash items such
as clothing (Judg 14:8-20), and/or in services:
"Normally, the bride-price consisted of sliver or goods, but it could be
services ... Jacob worked seven years for Rachel and Leah respectively."
[HI:HALOT,:2:1007]
"A fiancé could compound for the payment of the mohar by service,
as Jacob did for both his marriages (Gn 29:15-30), or by accomplishing an appointed
task, as David did for Mikal (1 S 18.25-27) and Othniel for Calab's daughter (Jos
15:16 = Jg 1:12)." [AI:1, 26f]
"Both the bride-price and the dowry could be paid in installments until the
first child was born, at which time the balance of both payments was due. The marriage
was legally finalized, and the mother assumed the legal rights of 'wife'." [OT:DLAM, 133]
Now, let's turn to the Exodus 21.7-11 passage, dealing with a father 'selling' his
daughter ....
1. The first thing to note is that commentators do not see this as a 'despicable',
'mercenary' act on the part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by
a dad in protection and provision for his daughter (generally thought to be under
extreme duress):
2. Secondly, commentators are quick to point out that this 'selling' isn’t real
slavery--its very, very different from 'regular' slavery transactions. [This
case is different than the debt-slave situation, in that (1) it is done by the father for
a dependent daughter, rather than an independent self-selling female; (2) it is about
marriage and childbearing, instead of simple domestic service labor, and is therefore
exempt from the must-wait-six-years provision--indeed release would not have to wait
nearly that long at all [the 'master' would know very soon if he was not pleased with the
bride-to-be]; (3) has multiple exit conditions; and (4) has additional protections and
guarantees in it]:
"Lagas-Girsu legal texts show
children being sold into slavery, and this led the texts' editor to posit a weak
family bond. If, as seems likely, the parents were choosing life over death
for their children, one does not need to doubt their devotion
to the children [OT:LIANE, 35]
"While this legal right of parents
was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from poverty and debt that
threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one means
of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new
household for the poor offspring." [OT:FAI, 196]
"Female slaves were treated
differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3;
22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more
advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to
become the wives of men in their own social class." [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]
"In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter
into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security.
The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents recording legal arrangements
of this kind have survived from Nuzi. The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as
a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated
to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no
compensation for the purchase price." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
"Older views held that Mesopotamian
marriage was basically a commercial arrangement in which the groom purchased the bride,
and it is true that extant texts are interested in the economic relations that were being
forged by the new union. But it is not helpful to see marriage as purchase because
the bride's family too usually presented gifts to the groom's family; instead, marriage
seems more a change in status for both parties, like adoption." [OT:LIANE, 52]
"The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that she
was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but
only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-husband
concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. ... Such an
interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slave-bride are given in sequence
to the "guiding principles" for the protection of the male temporary slave:
the slave-bride had special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free.
[WBC]
"The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl
in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave.
The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
"In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter
into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes
marriage to the master or his son. ... The Torah stipulates that the
girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional
wife, he is still obligated to support her." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
3. The odd mixture of 'slave' words and 'marriage' words designate this individual as a
'concubine'. Concubines in the ancient world were essentially
wives whose offspring were not automatically in the
inheritance/succession line. They had all the legal rights of wives, but they had typically
originated in a state of slavery. They were subordinate to freeborn-wives (if there were any
in the household), and their offspring could be successors ONLY IF the offspring were legally
'adopted' or publicly acclaimed by the owner. They could be legally 'promoted' to full wife
status (in the ANE).
"In Assyria a man could raise a concubine to the status of a wife."
[OT:DLAM, 136]
"The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows
an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter to be the
slave-concubine of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the
male slaves. If her master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not
sell her to a stranger. If he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights
of the first. If he intends her to be his son's wife, he must treat her as a
daughter of the family." [AI:1, 86]
"This restriction was the result of
the owner's having been faithless to her, that is, he had not lived up to the agreement
made with her household, that she would be his concubine. In addition, if the buyer
purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, then she was to treated as a
daughter. And if the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce his
concubine's conjugal rights, food, or clothing." [OT:FAI, 196]
"In addition to the regular wife or
wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or concubines who would bear
children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's behavior toward
a wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but
according to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case
will also apply in a major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with
even greater dignity. Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical
words in verse 10, there is some question concerning the obligations placed upon the man.
However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas, seer, kesut and ona
are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively. These specific
expressions capture the man's general responsibility to provide peace, permanence and
security for his wives." [HI:MFBW, 48]
"Exodus 21:7-11 specifically seeks to
regulate cases involving Israelite women/girls who were sold by their fathers as female
slaves (amot), presumably because of debt. Many commentators assume that this sale
envisions marriage to the master or to his son, but the absence of marriage or divorce
terminology in the passage suggests the purpose of the sale was
concubinage. The regulation safeguards
the woman's rights in two respects. First, the purchaser may not treat her as an ordinary
slave. If she proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation
to treat her as his own concubine, or assign her to his son, he may not treat her as an
ordinary slave woman. Because he has failed to grant her the protection available to
concubines through motherhood, she retains the right to redemption by her father. Second,
the purchaser may not sell her to a foreigner, that is a non-Israelite, and thereby render
her irredeemable because foreigners would not recognize her rights under Israelite
law." [HI:MFBW, 60]
[Note: one of the two main purposes of concubinage (the other being to provide an heir
in a barren marriage)--an economically very expensive expedient in the ancient world--was
to keep the family from falling below 'critical mass'. The mortality rate was so high
("as many as one in two children did not survive to the age of five" [OT:FAI:19]),
and the labor demand was so high, that additional means of renewal (other than just the
single-wife of the ideal) were sometimes necessary:
"Those labor requirements in early
Israel were especially intense for several reasons: cropping patterns, with their
seasonal demands for many hands to do certain sowing or harvesting tasks within a
relatively short window of environmental opportunity; sporadic needs for terrace
maintenance and land clearing; a constant set of time-consuming daily procedures for
tending to livestock, securing water, and transforming food products to comestibles. The
number of persons needed for the family, as the primary, self-sufficient economic unit, to
perform the myriad tasks in a regime with critical labor-intensive periods was greater
than a nuclear family could supply. Extended or compound families were essential
for survival." [OT:FAI, 18]
"Concubines are women without dowry
who include among their duties providing children to the family. Childbearing
was an important function in the ancient world, where survival of the family, and often
survival at all, was tenuous at best. " [BBC, at Gen 35.21ff]
" A concubine was a true wife,
though of secondary rank. This is indicated, for example, by the references to a
concubine’s "husband" (Jud 19:3), the "father-in-law" (Jud 19:4),
"son-in-law" (Jud 19:5). Thus, the concubine was not a kept mistress, and did
not cohabit with a man unless married to him. The institution itself is an offshoot of
polygamy." [TWOT, s.v. concubine/pilgsh]
4. This focus on the wife-aspect of this process leads commentators to understand this
passage to be about protections for the woman, over and
above the protections afforded a male slave, and there were many 'exit clauses' for the
woman--to full family membership, or to freedom:
"When a daughter was sold into
slavery by her father, this was intended both as a payment of debt and as a way of
obtaining a husband for her without a dowry. She has more rights than a male in the
sense that she can be freed from slavery if her master does not provide her with
food, clothing and marital rights. [BBC, Exodus]
"Female slaves were treated
differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen.
16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more
advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to
become the wives of men in their own social class. If a daughter who became a servant was
not pleasing to her master she was to be redeemed by a near kinsman (cf. Lev.
25:47-54) but never sold to foreigners (Ex. 21:8); she could also redeem herself.
If she married her master’s son she was to be given family status (v. 9). If
the master married someone else he was required to provide his servant with three
essentials: food, clothing, and shelter. [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]
"The expectation of seventh-year
release was denied to women... Though an owner may be unhappy with a female slave he has
bought for himself, he is to permit her to be freed by the payment of a price,
apparently by her family, or he is to make provision for her to remain within his
own family, perhaps as a daughter-in-law. Despite his own dissatisfaction with her,
he has no right to sell her to "a
strange family", a family unknown to her, perhaps even one outside the covenant
community of Israel. If he keeps her within his own family, yet takes another woman as his
own wife or concubine, he is not to deny her the basic rights which his purchase of
her for himself guaranteed in the first place. ... If the owner refuses to
provide the female slave with these fundamental rights, he waives his claim of possession,
and she is free to go her own way. The provisions here stipulated for such a woman
make it very likely that she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only
as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting
her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become
dissatisfied with the union. Mendelsohn has cited Nuzian sale contracts which almost
exactly parallel the Exodus provisions. Such an interpretation makes clear why the
provisions for such a slavebride are given in sequence to the "guiding principles"
for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had
special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free. [WBC]
"In addition to the regular wife or
wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or concubines who would bear
children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's behavior toward a
wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but according
to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case will also
apply in a major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with
even greater dignity. Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical
words in verse 10, there is some question concerning the obligations placed upon
the man. However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas, seer, kesut
and ona are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively.
These specific expressions capture the man's general
responsibility to provide peace, permanence and security for his wives."
[HI:MFBW, 48]
"The regulation safeguards the woman's rights in two respects. First,
the purchaser may not treat her as an ordinary slave.
If she proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation to
treat her as his own concubine, or assign her to his son, he
may not treat her as an ordinary slave woman. Because he has failed to
grant her the protection available to concubines through motherhood, she retains
the right to redemption by her father. Second, the purchaser may not sell her to a
foreigner, that is a non-Israelite, and thereby render her irredeemable because foreigners
would not recognize her rights under Israelite law." [HI:MFBW, 60]
"The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual
sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. The
following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual
exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
"In the ancient world, a father,
driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure
her future security. ... The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated
as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is
still obligated to support her." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
"The 'amah of the Book of the
Covenant (Exod. 21:7-10) is an Israelite woman sold for this status by her father. If the
buyer has designated her for his son, she is treated like any other daughter in-law,
becomes a wife, and is not freed in the seventh year. If the man for whom she was
acquired as a wife did not want her, he could "redeem her" to another family
but he could not sell her, for his not marrying her was considered a betrayal. If he
married another woman, he had to keep providing for his 'amah; if not, she would go
free." [HI:HALOT:2:1008]
"The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows
an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter to be the slave-concubine
of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the male slaves. If her
master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not sell her to a
stranger. If he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights of the first.
If he intends her to be his son's wife, he must treat her as a daughter of the family."
[AI:1, 86]
"This restriction was the result of the owner's having been faithless to her,
that is, he had not lived up to the agreement made with her household,
that she would be his concubine. In addition, if
the buyer purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, these she was to treated
as a daughter. And if the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce
his concubine's conjugal rights, food, or clothing." [OT:FAI, 196]
So, this passage is hardly 'negative': it provides an escape from poverty for a young
woman, security and protection (and upward social mobility) in the house of a better
place, and all the basic legal rights of a wife.
After seeing that this transaction is properly understood as one of a poor father’s
care for the future of his daughter, seeking to find for her security and protection,
we are ready to come back to Osama's argument:
Also, the fact that the master can either marry her or marry her off to his son,
means that MOST LIKELY, SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER'S AGE and younger than his son!!
So he's probably at least 30+ years older than her. Yet, he himself (her father's
age or even MUCH older) can marry her.
This argument is misguided for several reasons. The father is NOT selling his daughter
on a slave market to the highest bidder, whom he does not know anything about, and who is
then taking her away into foreign lands and to an uncertain future. This is about a contract
between two families, who may know each other, and who would typically live in the same area
(same town, neighboring village, or similar). The contract is negotiated/decided on by the
two heads of household, the father and the future master. The point is: The father would
know in advance who will become the husband of his daughter. That is not an open question.
Let's look again at the text of Exodus 21:7-11:
If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.
He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
This is obviously a legal text, and each verse is one paragraph of law, i.e. giving
instructions/conditions for various distinct cases. Osama's fundamental error is
that he mixes two cases, and then derives a faulty conclusion from that combination.
Verse 8 indicates that there may be months, or even years, that the girl lives
and works in the new household before she marries the master. At the time the contract
is made, he obviously liked her. She is designated to become his wife. However, as
the time for marriage approaches, he may - for whatever reason - develop a dislike
for her, and does not want to marry her any longer. He then must allow her family to redeem
her (i.e., buy her back). This shows that, even if the girl is sold at a very young age,
the wedding and sexual relations will not take place immediately. Rather, she is given
the time to mature until an appropriate age for marriage.
Verse 9 deals with the case that the master made that contract with the intention
that the girl may become (eventually) the wife of his son. This does not mean that
his son is already an adult at the time of the contract. It only means that the master
planned that these two will marry in the future, at a time when both have matured
and are ready for marriage. In this case, the master is commanded to treat her like
a daughter in his household (not like property). He cannot simply change his mind
and marry her himself. This, however, is what Osama apparently assumes without any
basis in the text.
Verses 8 and 9 regulate the time before the marriage in two different cases.
Verses 10 and 11 are rules for certain possible situations that may arise after
marriage has taken place.
Although the father is in need, and has to sell his daughter in order to ensure
her survival, and perhaps the survival of his own family, he does not sell her into
an unknown future. To the contrary, he knows when making the contract that she will have
a future as the wife/concubine of an appropriate husband, and this includes
appropriateness of ages.
Summary: In order to force this text to support his polemic, Osama apparently
made several assumptions:
the girl is extremly young,
Verses 8 and 9 describe the same situation, although they are clearly distinct cases,
the master's son mentioned in verse 9 is (already) an adult, thus making the master
substantially older than the girl,
it is the master's sovereign decision whether he would give the girl to his adult son
or marry her himself,
the marriage (and subsequently sexual relations) will take place immediately
after the girl enters into the household of the master.
If all of these assumptions were true, Osama may have had a case, albeit a weak one.
However, since these assumptions are mostly wrong, or at least unproven, Osama has simply
no case at all.
We now turn to the second text. First, here are Miller’s comments regarding
Numbers 31:
Right off the bat, though, there are several obvious historical errors in these brief
statements, and several assumptions that have no warrant whatsoever in either the text
itself, or in the historical background of the ANE. The passage will be difficult enough
to our sensibilities as it is, but let’s first ‘weed out the chaff’ among
these allegations. [These ‘easy’ errors, however, in themselves might not be
enough to exonerate God, so we will to dig deep into the passage/situation to surface
the actual ethical issues and dynamics.]
[ ... ]
First of all, there was no ‘test for virginity’ needed/used. In spite of
the elaborate/miraculous one created by the later rabbi’s (ingenious, but altogether
unnecessary) using the Urim and Thummim (!), the ‘test for virginity’ in the ANE
was a simple visual one:
Was the female pre-pubescent?
Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated
with virginity for that culture?
Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated
with non-virginity for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?
Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance
issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity
itself was often marked by some type of clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in
2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’); as was more
typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or
certain hairstyles). Of course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple
prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also indicated by special markings or adornments
(e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).
For example, the erotic art of the ANE shows a consistent difference in hairstyles
between women and sacred prostitutes:
"In fact, the physical characteristics of the women on the [erotic] plaques are
totally different from those of other female representations in Mesopotamian and Syrian
art. As with the clay figurines, they are frequently naked and their hair is
loose—none of these traits is to be found in statues or seals that represent
women...These groups [associations of cultic prostitutes] were defined by a generic name
[the ‘separated ones’], while their specific names of individual associations
hinted at their garments, which were particularly luxurious, or odd, their coiffure,
or to their general appearance, which distinguished them from other women."
[OT:CANE:2526]
Some of these patterns varied by culture/age:
"Once married, women were not veiled in Babylonia. Legal texts imply that married
women were veiled in Assyria." [OT:DLAM:135]
"The bride was covered with a veil that the groom removed. Married women were not
veiled in Babylonia but seem to have had a special headgear; legal texts, however,
suggest that married women were veiled in Assyria." [OT:CANE:489]
In other words, the process of identifying the females who were (a) not married
and (b) not prostitutes, either sacred or secular, would have been relatively
straightforward—at the precision level required by the event.
Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for "sex slave" purposes
contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event. [But at least one of
the writers above—to their credit—added the word ‘presumably’, realizing
that the text doesn’t actually say anything about it…]
1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE
(circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average
age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life
expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible
things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That
these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite
incongruent with their ages.
And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at
all! Children raised in Israelite households were ‘put to work’ around this age,
sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of
7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead, the Israelite families would
have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before
they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. [Also note
that ‘slavery’ in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from
"New World" slavery, which we normally associate with the word ‘slavery’,
and most of what is called that in popular literature should not be so termed. See
qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation.]
2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ANE was not very ‘into’ using
slaves/captives for sexual purposes, even though scholars earlier taught this:
"During the pinnacle of Sumerian culture, female slaves outnumbered male. Their
owners used them primarily for spinning and weaving. Saggs maintains that their owners
also used them for sex, but there is little actual evidence to support such a claim"
[OT:EML:69]
3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY:
"This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband.
Except among the Hebrews, where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged in the
centuries after 800 BC, a double standard prevailed, and husbands were routinely expected
to have sex not only with their wives, but with slavewomen and prostitutes." [WS:AHTO:39;
note: I would disagree with the remark about ‘after 800 bc’ because that dating
presupposes a very late date for the composition of the narratives under discussion…If
the narrative events occurred closer to the purposed times, then this ‘disparagement’
applied earlier in Israel as well as later.]
4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing
children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated,
as Carol Meyers points out ["The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel",
Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):
"Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working
out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking
again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be
noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too
were the "young girls who have not known man by lying with him" (Num 31:18).
These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead,
they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine
period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which
could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff
1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they
entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior;
rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme
that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by
plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest
of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need
for females of childbearing age took precedence."
[But note that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the passage is that all
females which were capable of bearing children were killed—not just those
who actually were non-virginal. This would drive the average age quite low, although
the Hebrew text offers only limited support at best for their interpretation.]
[I should also point out that the "for yourselves" phrase (31.18)
is NOT actually referring to "for your pleasure", but is a reference to the
opposite condition of "for YHWH" which applied to all people or property
which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem
(or ‘ban’) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was
‘delivered over to YHWH’ was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to ‘for
yourselves’, then, in this passage, means simply ‘do not kill them’.
This can also be seen in that this ‘booty’ was not ‘for themselves’
actually, but was distributed to others within the community.]
[ ... ]
5. The 32,000 girls who were absorbed/assimilated into Israel would have been actually
a small number. According to the distribution of them, the 12,000 ‘soldiers’
received 16,000 (half of them), making an average 1.5 per household. The other half
(16,000) was distributed throughout all of Israel, meaning that very few families would
get one. This would still have been some hardship for the Israelite families, who at this
time are still nomadic peoples without any material base from which to live. More than one
commentator has noted that this seems to be a surprise act of mercy, and it is interesting
to note that Whiston, in a footnote on his 18th-century translation of
Josephus’ account of this passage [Antiq, VII] argues that this sparing of
the little girls is a surprise of mercy, given the practical demands of this type of
combat in the OT/ANE (which we will discuss later):
"The slaughter of all the Midianite women that had prostituted themselves to the
lewd Israelites, and the preservation of those that had not been guilty therein; the last
of which were no fewer than thirty-two thousand... and both by the particular command
of God, are highly remarkable, and shew that, even in nations otherwise for their
wickedness doomed to destruction, the innocent were sometimes providentially taken
care of, and delivered from that destruction"
Later, when Israel was more established and settled in the land, and had adequate
economic means, they would be able to absorb all the women and children (from
hostile-but-conquered foreign cities), but at this early stage this was quite an
impossibility. They had no need for "slaves," nor means to support them
at this time.
One point we would like to add to Miller’s comments is regarding the statement
of Numbers 31:40 that ‘32 of these virgins were given as tribute to the Lord.’
The context explains what this exactly means:
"The LORD said to Moses, ‘Take the count of the booty that was
taken, both of man and of beast, you and Elea'zar the priest and the heads of the fathers'
houses of the congregation; and divide the booty into two parts, between the warriors who
went out to battle and all the congregation. And levy for the LORD a tribute from the men
of war who went out to battle, one out of five hundred, of the persons and of the oxen and
of the asses and of the flocks; take it from their half, and give it to Elea'zar the
priest as an offering to the LORD. And from the people of Israel's half you shall take
one drawn out of every fifty, of the persons, of the oxen, of the asses, and of the
flocks, of all the cattle, and give them to the Levites who have charge of the
tabernacle of the LORD.’ And Moses and Elea'zar the priest did as the LORD
commanded Moses. Now the booty remaining of the spoil that the men of war took was: six
hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand cattle, sixty-one thousand
asses, and thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known man by lying
with him. And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was in number
three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep, and the LORD's tribute of
sheep was six hundred and seventy-five. The cattle were thirty-six thousand, of
which the LORD's tribute was seventy-two. The asses were thirty thousand five hundred,
of which the LORD's tribute was sixty-one. The persons were sixteen thousand, of
which the LORD's tribute was thirty-two persons. And Moses gave the tribute, which
was the offering for the LORD,to Elea'zar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses.
From the people of Israel's half, which Moses separated from that of the men who had gone
to war- now the congregation's half was three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five
hundred sheep, thirty-six thousand cattle, and thirty thousand five hundred asses, and
sixteen thousand persons- from the people of Israel's half Moses took one of every fifty,
both of persons and of beasts, and gave them to the Levites who had charge of the
tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses. Then the officers who were over
the thousands of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, came
near to Moses, and said to Moses, ‘Your servants have counted the men of war who are
under our command, and there is not a man missing from us. And we have brought the LORD's
offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings,
earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.’ And Moses and
Elea'zar the priest received from them the gold, all wrought articles. And all the gold of
the offering that they offered to the LORD, from the commanders of thousands and the
commanders of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. (The men of
war had taken booty, every man for himself.) And Moses and Elea'zar the priest received
the gold from the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tent
of meeting, as a memorial for the people of Israel before the LORD."
Numbers 31:25-54 RSV
Thus, the context shows that the virgins who were set apart for the Lord were to be
given to God’s ministers, the priests.
As one can see from the preceding data, the laws prescribed in the Holy Bible are
actually for the benefit and protection of the woman’s honor and integrity. This
is unlike Islam, which permits Muslims to rape and sell slave women at will:
Thus, what Osama thought was justification for the perverted practices of his religion,
actually backfires against him and shows just how vastly superior God’s true Word,
the Holy Bible, truly is in comparison to the Quran.
One other point we want to briefly discuss is Osama’s claim that the Song of Songs
states that women’s vaginas taste like wine:
His sister's vagina tastes like "wine":
"How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands.
Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your
waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two
fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes
are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi.
.......
I said 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.' May your
breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples,
and your mouth like the best wine. (The NIV Bible,
Song of Songs 7:1-4, 8-9)"
According to the documentary film "Sex in the Bible"
on A&E TV Station, the Hebrew translation to "Your
naval" is referring to the woman's VAGINA. The English translators
substituted the word "NAVEL" WITH "VAGINA." Please rent
a copy of the movie and watch it. This was sent to me by my dear brother in
Islam Mike who embraced Islam just recently; may Allah
Almighty always be pleased with him.
Osama has deliberately lied to his readers regarding the meaning of "navel"
in this passage. Instead of doing the scholarly thing and examining the relevant
commentaries and lexicons, Osama appeals to a TV program, which may or may not have said
what is claimed. This kind of research is more akin to that which is found in TV tabloid
magazines like The Enquirer.
In the first place, anyone remotely familiar with Hebrew literature would see that the
verse is structured in a way in which the second line further explicates or explains the
meaning of the first, or carries over the thought of the first sentence. Note the passage
carefully:
"Your NAVEL is like a round goblet Which never lacks mixed wine;
Your BELLY is like a heap of wheat Fenced about with lilies." Song of Songs 7:2 NASB
"Your NAVEL is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Your BELLY is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies." RSV
Thy NAVEL is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting;
thy BELLY is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies. 7:3 Jewish Publication Society (JPS)
Note the parallel here between navel and belly, which clearly shows that the text is
referring to the bride’s belly, not her vagina. The mention of wine and wheat (which
were associated with fertility) seems to suggest that Solomon is praising his lover’s
womb, since it is the place where a child is woven and conceived.
Furthermore, an examination of any Hebrew lexicon will show that the word for navel
DOES NOT mean vagina:
shorer {sho'-rer}
navel, umbilical cord
(Source: BlueLetter Bible
[using in turn The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament])
8326 ... the navel, i.q. ... Cant. 7:3; used for the part around the
navel, or the belly (which is compared to a bowl). Compare on the other hand ...
high place, summit; and ... navel.
(Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament: A Dictionary Numerically Coded to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance with
an Exhaustive English Index, H.W.F. Gesenius [Baker Book House; (June 1, 1990),
paperback; ISBN: 0801037360], p. 851)
(Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer,
Jr., Bruce K. Waltke [Moody Publishers; 2 Volumes edition, June 1, 1980], Volume II, p. 957)
In the above, we have presented scholarly references. Those constitute evidence.
If Osama is convinced that the people in the above mentioned TV broadcast did not simply make
a claim but also gave proof for it, then he should transcribe it, so that everyone can examine whether
Osama's alleged proof is in any way authoritative. We have presented our evidence, and cited
the sources. Osama has not given any evidence. So far, he has only made a claim. It is the duty
of the person who makes the claim to also present the evidence.
What makes this even more amazing is that Osama uses this very same book to prove
that Muhammad was predicted in the Holy Bible! Notice what he writes here:
Once we get past the deliberate mistranslations of Deuteronomy 33:2 and Jude 1:14-15,
we find that these prophecies not only refer unequivocally to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh),
but that they are corroborative of the much-discussed prophecy in Song of Songs, 5:10-16.
According to the well-researched work of Mohd Elfi Nieshaem Juferi and Maulana Abdul
Haq Vidyarthi, the original Hebrew version of SONG OF SONGS 5:16, if correctly
translated, predicts the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) by name:
His mouth is most: yea, he is MUHAMMAD. This is my
(paternal) UNCLE, and this is my COMRADE, O daughters
of Jerusalem.
"Muhammad [pbuh] In the Bible," supra,
http://members.xoox.com_XMCM/lordxarkun/Islam/songs5_10-16.html,
emphasis in original; see also "Muhammad In World Scriptures," supra, at pp. 100-111.
Significantly, in SONG OF SONGS 5:10, this same prophet - expressly identified
in the Hebrew as "Muhammad," is described as being "the chiefest among ten
thousands" (ibid., emphasis added) (King James Version).
This reference to the "ten thousands" indicates that the Prophet referred to
must be the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)!
If Osama is correct, this means that Muhammad must be a porn star,
since he is mentioned in a book which Osama says is full of porn!
It is obvious from the preceding statements that when the Holy Bible suits
his purpose, Osama has no hesitation to appeal to it as a divine revelation
containing true prophecies of Muhammad. But when it no longer helps his case
in promoting his false prophet and his false religion, he will then proceed
to attack the Holy Bible as a "filthy and slutty book, full of porn".
Such hypocrisy and inconsistency is typical of Osama and his kind.
Note the stark contrast between our appeal to the Quran and Osama’s
appeal to the Holy Bible. We do not believe the Quran is an inspired revelation
from God, but we do believe that it is the oldest extant record we have on
Muhammad and his Companions. As such, we appeal to it to show what the views
the first Muslims held regarding issues such as the integrity of the Bible,
the Person of Christ etc. Osama, on the other hand, doesn’t simply appeal
to the Bible as an historical record, but a divinly revealed text only when it
will serve his purpose of providing supernatural verification for his prophet.
For the refutations of Osama’s lies regarding fathers’ sticking fingers in
their daughters, as well as the issue of the Holy Bible and porn, please read the
following articles:
Lord Jesus willing, we will soon be publishing a two-part paper on Muhammad’s
marriage with Aisha, where we will address many of the responses and objections raised by
Osama, and other Muslims, regarding this issue. In that paper, we will also be addressing
Osama’s reference to the Talmud.
The Holy Bible sternly warned Israel not to intermarry with the pagan nations lest they end up worshiping their gods/goddesses:
“Be sure to keep what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite,
In this post I will show that the true God loves all nations equally, not just Israel. I will demonstrate that God commanded the Israelites to love the foreigner or non-Israelite as a fellow, native-born Israelite, and ordered that the same Law and commands equally apply to both Israelite and
