>Are you insane? How do you twist a verse like this without taking into context the entire law, or even the line after it?
YHWH took and was given female children as his share when, in the early Old Testament, he fought, physically, alongside the Jews.
It is very clear in the non-english ancient translations, and the greek and hebrew. He acted in much the way as a would dragon then.
This peacetime law is very well in keeping with YHWH's own actions.
It is you who tell us to ignore this law and that it is abrogated.
It is about raping female children (na'ar, paida, puella (child, child, young girl)). The price is 50 pieces of silver. A stipulation is given that she may not be returned.
In a contract marraige where the father has a choice of who he is to give, that extra stipulation is not attached and she can be divorced and returned.
In Devarim 22 verse 28, the word used in tahphas: which means to take, as in to take a city.
In Numbers, a different book, said word is not used.
You try to conflate the two to argue that Devarim is not about raping girl children.
A typical protestant christian argument.
In Exodus the situation is more like the whore situations you whites enjoy: you get permission from the woman.
In Devarim the man sought no permission: it was a soldiery straight rape of a girl child in her father's house (you missed that part because you don't study the laws in hebrew).
In the hebrew it says: If a man finds a child, and she is in her father's house, and he rapes her, and is discovered in the act, he shall pay, the father, fifty silver, an he may not put her away, all his days, as he has humiliated/humbled/(raped) her.
It's very clear.
This is similar to how you white christians read the "quiverful" verse.
In your english bibles it is translated thus:
"Children are a blessing from the Lord, it is best to have many, for they will be like a quiverful of arrow, for they will attest in your defense at the court"
In hebrew it states as thus:
SONS are a blessing from YHWH, for they are like a quiver of arrows, who will slaughter your enemies at your gate" (the opening to your house, curtilage there-of)
It's very different.
Such it is in much of the Bible.
>Who did YHWH command to kill in the OT?
The list is long.
Anyone who entices us to follow another Power (Devarim). Such as you do with "obey all earthly rulers".
Do these people still exist?
Look in the mirror.
Are you an ancient Israelite who has received command from God to exterminate particular targets?
YHWH left long ago.
>> The Catholic Church never accepted the "obey all earthly rulers" thing.
>They will be the first to push for it, and it's extremely convenient when they themselves put other men between you and God and declare these have divine authority to command you.
They wanted people to obey them. They were not obeying any earthly rulers. That would have conflicted with their ways.
Today they are cowed, like all who read the New Testament and set it above the first 5 books of the Old Testament.
>> Back when they ran things you could marry 7 year old girls
>And then never have sex with them except for the 3-4 times you're gonna make a kid in your life, right? Churches are not to have any say or ruling in marriages.
The popes fucked whores.
Men screwed their young brides at will.
Later the religion was taken over by monks, and later by eunich lovers.
Each time the past was rewritten.
>Ah yes, the "church" could no longer gatekeep the truth from the peasants, they got called on for all the bullshit they made up and all those doctrines that have exactly zero source in the >Bible.
They did the right thing. The New Testament is eunich loving pro-woman's rights trash that is the basis of all modern belief.
It abolishes child brides, raises women up, pushes men down (even says to chop off limbs "if x caused you to sin, cut it off!"))
>BUT THOSE ARE FIGURATIVE
Who cares, when the NT is in force they are carried out.
The New Testament is the source of the bad parts of the middle ages. (chopping off limbs, dicks, etc etc)
The Old Testament, first 5 books, is the source of the good parts (marrying cute little girls, men dominating girls, etc)
But you know what, the catholic church from back then would have killed you for heresy.
If you want to come at me, come at me, you know my address. Don't hope for a force in the past to come help you do what your physical self supposidly cannot.
(your so disabled you can't handle a gun?)
Anyway
>Are you insane.
Notice how you must resort to emotional rebuke when you cannot confront the text itself.
And the God YHWH who put forth these laws.
I like the early Old Testament in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.
>You want to sound fancy by including the later two. The oldest manuscripts we have are copies of the Greek Septuagint, which also contained a translation of the OT. Latin bibles are translations from many centuries later with plenty of inaccuracies. Today's Hebrew OT was reconstructed by the Masoretes, jews from the 5-10th centuries after the split, while they were also working on their satanic talmud on the side. If you want to read the earliest and more trustworthy version of the OT, you have no choice but to go for the version that was used by Jesus's disciples, ironic isn't it?
The septuagint said paida in Devarim chapter 22 verse 28. Which means child.
While you white christians scream about the septuagint at the same time saying drown all paedophiles: you have to resort to claiming paida "does not mean child" in greek when confronted.
Anyway the Masoretic Text confirms the Septuagint and is also confirmed by Jerome's Vulgate in these issues.
Which is why I cite it.
Because white christians like yourself like to claim "nuuh uhh na'ar doesn't mean child!" and cite modern hebrew.
So after I cite the scholarly works showing that in the time of wrighting Devarim; na'ar does mean child
I can also cite the Septuagint which straight up says paida while I'm being called a paida-philos (paedophile) (child+love(camradarie))
And also the Latin Vulgate which says young girl. Puella. and it means girl child.
Whites try to change the meaning of ancient words. And they convince others.
They are woman worshipers.
>God sided with who again?
The hunter-killer who killed and burned flesh in his honour.
Not the dirt digging farmer.
Jesus worshipers claim Old Testament God has been dethroned and thrown into hell with his Law.
>No Jesus worshiper, or anyone who has read the NT, has ever claimed such idiotic heresy.
They effectively do it every day.
Just as you do.
You reject the application of YHWH's pro-child bride law, in liue of Jesus's New Law.
He "fufilled" the law so you don't have to follow it anymore, you and yours claim.
And thus you can prevent men from taking little girls as brides.
"Obey all earthly rulers" dontchaknow.
"And the law is fufilled and abolished anyway"
"And it was a punishment, so we can imprison and kill the men who rape little girls instead"
"no 'dont go to the left or the right' of the law doesn't mean what you think it means"
>"Feminist new law"?
Yes. The basis for women's rights is
"Don't stone the woman" (she can fuck whom she wishes, no consequence, YHWH's law abolished)
"Better a millstone" (drown pedos)
"Don't marry" (it is better for men not to)
"Cut your dick and balls off for heaven" (another anti-man law)
[this echos the newer parts of the old testament where euniches are accepted as even better than "sons and daughters of Israel", in stark contrast to the old parts of the old testament]
>Excuse you?
Getting uppity now?
>Read the beginning of Ephesians.
I refuse.
I like YHWH's word in the first 5 books of the old testament.
I do not like Jesus' contrasting code.
Christians oppose men marrying young girls.
That's all there is to it.
YHWH reveled in it and took girls for himself too, in hebrew.
You wouldn't know it because it is not translated as harshly or as straight in english.
So do you like my coding, programming, and 3d map work anymore?
