Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I think you are speaking of the ancient Jews (killing all the men and keeping all the women).

No I wasn't. Let me be clear..I was speaking of early Islam and Muhammad

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."

Isn't taking slave girls as wives a form of forced marriage?

I can quote several Hadiths that speak of raiding towns, taking the women and forcing themselves on those women

Maybe "Forced marriages" are forbidden of other Muslim women but clearly it was not in regards to non-Islamic women taken in raids

Consider these Quranic quotes

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; "

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

Is it ok for a muslim to lie when he/she takes an oath to become a US citizen?

Still no answer....

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Still no answer....

Seriously Prax? This again?

Post 348:

Answer to the original question is no, it is not OK for a Muslim to lie when taking the oath of US citizenship.

"...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Post 353 was addressed to the last guy who implied that the question wasn't answered. This must be a really (really really) big deal here but interrogation to the answer you want to hear ain't exactly a new church practice is it. LOL

Answer to the original question is no, it is not OK for a Muslim to lie when taking the oath of US citizenship.

"...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Again:

Answer to the original question is no, it is not OK for a Muslim to lie when taking the oath of US citizenship.

"...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."


When you get time maybe you could answer this one?

Post 349:

Your turn. No, not a sin nor no, cannot originate from God even though it is through a highly respected and supported UPC minister?

Still no answer. Unlike the above, it's no big deal to me if you do not.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Yes, you are "probably" right

[Walks_in_islam]

Yes Pliny you are "probably" right

“And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses (to adultery), flog them...” Q 24:4) “Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, stand forth themselves as liars!” (Q 24:13)

An example where inability to prove an accusation beyond a shadow of a doubt gets defined as a lie and, if properly followed, earns a flogging for the accuser in Islam.

You really nailed this one. That's terrible for women!

The rest of your post isn't worth answering but this part is actually, amazingly, on topic. I am thinking that was an accident.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Moses is speaking and Moses allowed divorce as well.
Jesus corrected the rabbinic views when He said:
(Mat 19:3 KJV) The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Mat 19:5 KJV) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(Mat 19:6 KJV) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus clearly pointed back to the original created order of man. In the beginning God created one man and one woman in full maturity. They were a couple. This is the created order and what God has ordained as good and holy. Because, of the hardness of their heart Moses allowed divorce:
(Mat 19:7 KJV) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
(Mat 19:8 KJV) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(Mat 19:9 KJV) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

It never ceases to amaze me. The lengths people will go to justify themselves.

Seems they will go long lengths. Even so far as to take an argument on divorce and use it as an argument about marriage. You could really nail Mohammed ASW with this one, have him pinned cold, if he had only divorced that girl instead of staying with her until he died. Mannnnnnnnn so close - I know right?

Now lemme see if I get this.

Moses allowed divorce, because hearts were hard. Jesus clarified cause for divorce as limited to fornication by the married party. From this, it can be determined that everyone declared righteous in your bible from long before moses (or jews for that matter) to long after moses who took more than one wife or who captured a girl and took her to their household was actually sinning, even though there is nothing about this anywhere that uses the word sin this can be mined like bitcoin from the above passage by those of elevated understanding.

You must be a preacher.

Naturally Jesus did not actually say anything like that in his discussion of divorce and rules for divorce and said nothing about what age does or does not constitute a wife though He had the floor and a captive audience but it's all there in that passage about divorce, and you are the one, after 2000+ years, who has been set up to clarify what Jesus MUST have MEANT to say for the rest of the planet.

Pass the plate, I have something special to put into it for you.

So sure, Pliny you are "probably" right. It makes perfect sense. As much sense as the "Probably" captured captive girls who had the rest of their family "killed in battle you said?" grew up, attended ACE schools, and happily assimilated into the culture of loving biblical marriage after a month off to pull themselves together.

"Taking prepubescent girls who have never known a man for yourselves" was allowed in one passage and the process for doing it was clearly described in another passage. That was my earlier point since you asked.

You left out the passage about rape victims who don't call out getting stoned with their rapist and you failed to point out that a rapist is only punished for forcing himself on a girl who is already promised to someone else, otherwise he is rewarded with the girl he raped, for life. Biblical marriage is wonderful, if you are a man, right? Those passages fall under "thus says the LORD" and cannot be attributed to Moses.

I am in no way obligated to supply you with chapter and verse - if you doubt what is posted go find it yourself. It's your book, you're supposed to know it and if you have to do a little work to find it whine elsewhere.

You received some good advice from your peers earlier today. Take it. You're getting nowhere here.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Seems they will go long lengths. Even so far as to take an argument on divorce and use it as an argument about marriage. You could really nail Mohammed ASW with this one, have him pinned cold, if he had only divorced that girl instead of staying with her until he died. Mannnnnnnnn so close - I know right?

Now lemme see if I get this.

Moses allowed divorce, because hearts were hard. Jesus clarified cause for divorce as limited to fornication by the married party. From this, it can be determined that everyone declared righteous in your bible from long before moses (or jews for that matter) to long after moses who took more than one wife or who captured a girl and took her to their household was actually sinning, even though there is nothing about this anywhere that uses the word sin this can be mined like bitcoin from the above passage by those of elevated understanding.

Divorce and marriage are entwined together. In case you are unaware of this interesting fact, you don’t get divorced unless you are married. This is even understood by Islamic “scholars”.

“Marrying a young girl before she reaches the age of adolescence is permitted in sharee’ah; indeed it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point.
(a) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”
[al-Talaaq 65:4]

In this verse we see that Allaah has made the ‘iddah in the case of divorce of a girl who does not have periods – because she is young and has not yet reached puberty – three months. This clearly indicates that Allaah has made this a valid marriage.”

There is Islamic “scholarly consensus” that the islamic deity has made this a valid marriage.

As far as those taking more than one wife as “sinning”, yes they did. Jesus affirmed the creative order as being between one man and one woman. So simple even a cave man can understand it!

Here is another factoid for you. The Bible does not profess to be a laundry list of every sin that man could possibly conceive. That would fill a library and no doubt someone somewhere would argue that their particular “distasteful” act was not delineated anywhere and is therefore “not sin”. The volumes would be so large that it would take a U-Haul truck and trailer to bring the Bible to church.

Instead God gave 613 mitzvahs (commandments), in the Old Testament, and many of those deal specifically with religious ceremony and how they, as a nation, were to approach God. Instead of a library of do’s and don’ts God gave them a ministry - Deuteronomy 17. The ministry was to use the principles of God to establish the matter.

Many critics make similarly unlearned statements. You, like them, seek only to justify your pet doctrine. In this case the pet doctrine is the manipulation and exploitation of young girls through the example and teachings of your prophet.

Oh and to your point about Muhammad divorcing the girl. He should have NEVER married her to begin with. Don’t you agree? After all even you cannot deny that what he did was “distasteful” can you?

When will you leave that religion that has such inherent “distasteful” beliefs?

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You must be a preacher.

Although I am certain you meant this as a pejorative, I take it as a compliment. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Naturally Jesus did not actually say anything like that in his discussion of divorce and rules for divorce and said nothing about what age does or does not constitute a wife though He had the floor and a captive audience but it's all there in that passage about divorce, and you are the one, after 2000+ years, who has been set up to clarify what Jesus MUST have MEANT to say for the rest of the planet.

Naturally common sense demands that a marriage covenant be between two people of sufficient age and maturity to enter into the covenant. Well unless you’re the “messenger of god” (according to islam). Once again going back to the scripture you referred to about Rebekah. The text makes it clear she was of a mature age physically and mentally. She was able to not only go to a well by herself and take back enough water for the family for the day. She was also physically able to draw water for the camels of Abraham’s servant. That is no small task concerning the amounts of water camel’s drink!

“They drink large amounts of water - up to 20 gallons at a time.”
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/camel.html

Additionally, Rebekah had the mental acumen to know the state of the family’s provisions. It’s clear she was, as the ESV states, a young woman. Every case of marriage in the Bible is between mature individual’s not prepubescent girls, as exemplified by your prophet. Jesus affirmed the creative order of one man and one woman (Mtt. 19).

BTW your hyperbole of stating that I am the only person after 2000+ years to note the “distasteful” act of your prophet is, well, “distasteful” is really quite funny. Especially considering that you yourself have said the same thing! Thanks for the laugh!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Pass the plate, I have something special to put into it for you.

Here’s an idea. Why don’t you make your donation here:
http://humanoptions.org/need-help/em...omens-shelter/

They speak Farsi as well!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

So sure, Pliny you are "probably" right. It makes perfect sense. As much sense as the "Probably" captured captive girls who had the rest of their family "killed in battle you said?" grew up, attended ACE schools, and happily assimilated into the culture of loving biblical marriage after a month off to pull themselves together.

Apparently you have no idea what ACE schools are. They did not have them then, just so you know. I am sure that you must have been ignorant of that fact since you would never try to be insulting. Especially after sniveling about “insults” right?

BTW they, the slave girls, were allowed freedom of choice. They were not coerced into it, marriage or Judaism, like muslims around the world do today. This is one of your interpretive problems. You have an Islamic paradigm that makes you see things through the muslim example. This highlights the fallacy of your attempted interpretations.

Islamic example:
“The world reacted in horror and revulsion at the kidnapping of 276 Nigerian schoolgirls in April. But twice as many Coptic Christian schoolgirls in Egypt have vanished slowly, one-by-one, in kidnappings that remain unsolved.

Since January, 2011 through March, 2014, over 550 Christian girls were kidnapped by Muslim men and forced to convert and marry their abductors, often after suffering violence at the hands of their kidnappers, according to the Association of Victims of Abduction and Forced Disappearance (AVAFD).”
http://blog.godreports.com/2014/06/o...pt-since-2011/

TBC

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

"Taking prepubescent girls who have never known a man for yourselves" was allowed in one passage and the process for doing it was clearly described in another passage. That was my earlier point since you asked.

Here is the fallacy of your failed “interpretation” again. You think because taking a prepubescent girl “for yourselves” means the same thing as what muslims do. That’s not the case, as has been pointed out time and time again. So, since there seems to be a comprehension problem here it is once again, a portion anyway.

(Num 31:15 KJV) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
(Num 31:16 KJV) Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
(Num 31:17 KJV) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
(Num 31:18 KJV) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I have looked and nowhere is there the mentioning of marrying prepubescent girls or consummating that “marriage”. That is called eisegesis.

I was even generous and looked at the Septuagint, looking for your fabrication. Guess what? It’s not there either.
(Num 31:18 Brenton) And as for all the captivity of women, who have not known the lying with man, save ye them alive.

The Biblical marriage is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. The very fact that it is a “covenant” demands that both parties be mature enough to enter into that covenant. Hence, the reason why there was a contractual writing of divorcement required to break that covenant relationship. A nine year old does not meet that standard.

The “little one’s” here were taken as captives and later in life, when they reached the age for entering into covenants, they were married into Judaism if they so desired. It was there freedom of choice.

Even that carnal man Josephus recognizes this:
“But now, if any man take captive, either a virgin, or one that hath been married, (See note below) and has a mind to marry her, let him not be allowed to bring her to bed to him, or to live with her as his wife, before she hath her head shaven, and hath put on her mourning habit, and lamented her relations and friends that were slain in the battle, that by this means she may give vent to her sorrow for them, and after that may betake herself to feasting and matrimony; for it is good for him that takes a woman, in order to have children by her, to be complaisant to her inclinations…”

Note: Here it is supposed that this captive's husband, if she were before a married woman, was dead before, or rather was slain in this very battle, otherwise it would have been adultery in him that married her.
Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, Book 4, Chapter 8, Section 23.

Whenever a female captive reached an age of maturity that allowed her to enter into a covenant then she could, by her freewill choice, enter into marriage but not before. She had the choice unlike for many, many women who fall into the hands of muslims today.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You left out the passage about rape victims who don't call out getting stoned with their rapist and you failed to point out that a rapist is only punished for forcing himself on a girl who is already promised to someone else, otherwise he is rewarded with the girl he raped, for life. Biblical marriage is wonderful, if you are a man, right? Those passages fall under "thus says the LORD" and cannot be attributed to Moses.

Once again you’ve miserably failed to document your assertions. Why is that? Based upon past practices it appears that you know if someone looks at your assertion versus the citation they will see the fallacy of your logic. All because you want to defend the example and teachings of Muhammad who was a pedophile.

You cannot even bring yourself to say it. You know it’s wrong so instead of stating it you try to launder it by saying it’s “distasteful”. Distasteful doesn’t sound as bad as pedophilia but you cannot escape the fact of what it is. So you try to defend the indefensible. Some people love darkness more than light.

As to not addressing one of your “points”, I looked and I did indeed forget to address the whole point. Here is what was posted and below will be my address to that “point”. Again context is important to anyone who truly wants to know truth.

(Deu 22:25 KJV) But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
(Deu 22:26 KJV) But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Above is a clear case of rape. In this the woman is freed because she did nothing wrong. The man, on the other hand, forfeits his life.

Below is a different set of circumstances.
(Deu 22:28 KJV) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
(Deu 22:29 KJV) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

In the context of Deu. 22:25 where there is rape the woman is not guilty of adultery. The man alone bears the judgment as stipulated in verse 26. In this case it’s not rape but there is a willingness on the woman to yield to the man’s advances. This is similar to:
(Exo 22:16 KJV) And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Apparently you have never heard that a text with no context is a pretext. That is what we have here. You are once again sacrificing truth on the altar of justification.

Where do you get this garbage from? Some imam somewhere that thinks he’s smarter than the text and can therefore tell the text what it must mean?

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I am in no way obligated to supply you with chapter and verse - if you doubt what is posted go find it yourself. It's your book, you're supposed to know it and if you have to do a little work to find it whine elsewhere.

This is what people do when they don’t want anyone to know their source. By giving others the source of the information intellectually honest people can find it and look for themselves. This is just a deceptive tactic to keep people from finding the truth.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You received some good advice from your peers earlier today. Take it. You're getting nowhere here.

I know that you do not nor will you accept the truth. You are here for one reason and one reason only – defend islam. As such nothing will ever be accepted if it challenges islam.

As to my “peer’s”. I understand you don’t want me warn people of the insidiousness of islam. You would prefer me to keep quiet so you can continue to setup straw man arguments and false moral equivalencies in an attempt to silence those that would warn people of islam’s example and teaching. I am sure you believe that is “good advice”. However, it’s not the right advice.

(Eze 33:6 KJV) But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

People have a right to know the teachings of islam and prepubescent marriage is one of those teachings.

With that said, God has dealt with me about how I have responded to some things. 1 Peter 3:9 states that we are not to render railing for railing. In this I have been wrong and I apologize. Although the Bible does not list this as a “sin” it is a sin because it misses the mark to which I was called. That is based upon Biblical principles. Principles that help us determine what sin is and what isn’t, like a fifty plus year old man marrying a prepubescent girl when she was only six years old and consummating that marriage when she was only nine years old. That is a sin as well.

I do not apologize for stating clearly that Muhammad was a pedophile and due to his example this perversion has been codified into the religious system known as islam. To accept islam is to accept this practice regardless of how “distasteful” a person may feel about it.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Here is the fallacy of your failed “interpretation” again. You think because taking a prepubescent girl “for yourselves” means the same thing as what muslims do. That’s not the case, as has been pointed out time and time again. So, since there seems to be a comprehension problem here it is once again, a portion anyway.

Please add "dim" to "humorless" in your long list of personality traits. What I think about this passage has nothing to do with what Muslims think. It has, as stated (much much WAY) earlier, everything to do with what the Jews who practiced and lived under these laws think.

Since you appear to be a preacher and have such a witful way of both jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth I guess I will save you the research and show you how those who lived under and practiced these laws interpreted them. They interpret them differently from you and why. My guess as to why this may be is this: There is no personal motive or gain to be had, as in this discussion, by glossing them over.

Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 25:20 says:

[I]forty years old: For when Abraham came from Mount Moriah, he was informed that Rebecca had been born. Isaac was then thirty-seven years old, for at that time Sarah died, and from the time that Isaac was born until the “Binding” [of Isaac], when Sarah died, were thirty-seven years, for she was ninety years old when Isaac was born, and one hundred and twenty-seven when she died, as it is stated (above 23:1): “The life of Sarah was [a hundred and twenty-seven years.”] This makes Isaac thirty-seven years old, and at that time, Rebecca was born. He waited for her until she would be fit for marital relations-three years-and then married her.— [From Gen. Rabbah 57:1

Source: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi=true

Also Johann Buxtorf cites Rashi that Rebecca was three years old when she married Isaac.

[I]Rabbi Solomon in his comment on Genesis, says that Rebecca, when she was married to Isaac, was but three Years of Age. His words run thus, ‘When Abraham was come from Mount Moria, he received the joyful News of Rebecca. Isaac was at that Time Thirty seven years old; and then did Sarah die. The time, from birth of Isaac to the death of Sarah, was Thirty seven Years, And Sarah was Ninety Years old when Isaac was born; and One Hundred and Twenty Seven Years old when she died: As it is said in Gen 23:1 . Sarah was one hundred and twenty-seven years old. Behold, the Age of Isaac was Thirty Seven Years, at the Time of the Birth of Rebecca. And when he had waited for her three Years, till she was fit for marriage, he took her to wife.”
According to this Account, Rebecca was a very notable Girl at three years of age. But that a girl of three Years old is fit for marriage, is maintained very plainly in the Jewish writings; particularly, in Emek Hamelech, in the following passage, ‘our blessed sags, of blessed memory, say, that a female is not fit for marriage, ‘till she is arrived at the Age of three years and one day.’ The Talmud supports these Sages here, in the part entitled Avoda Sara. And the Sanhedrin says, A daughter, who is of the age of three years and one day, is, by being bedded with a Man, lawfully married.”

Source: Johann Buxtorf, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, John Peter Stehelin
Rabinical literature: or, The traditions of the Jews, contained in their Talmud and other mystical writings. Likewise the opinions of that people concerning Messiah, and the time and manner of his appearing; with an appendix comprizing Buxtorf’s account of the religious customs and ceremonies of that nation; also, A preliminary enquiry into the origin, progress, authority, and usefulness of these traditions; wherein the sense of the strange allegories in the Talmud and Jewish authors is explained. [ Publisher: London J. Robinson, 1748] Volume 1 page 33 – 34

“One might counter that the expression mohar habbetulot (Ex. 22:16[17]) refers rather to the pretium virginitatis. In this case, the mohar would be compensation to the girl for the loss of her virginity. This explanation, however, is unacceptable, since it proceeds on the assumption that the term betula means ‘virgin.’ This may doubtlessly be the case in many passages, but in joel 1:8, betula thus refers to a married woman who had been ‘possessed’ by her husband (ba’al); betula thus refers to a marriageable girl who was physically able to cope with a man, ‘taking her into his possession.’ Here the term betula says nothing about her virginity. Ex.22:16 (17) (kesep yisqol kemohar hab betulot) can thus be translated ‘he shall weigh out as much silver as is required for marriageable girls.’ In this context we should point out that ancient Hebrew custom did not associate marriageability with puberty. In contrast to the marriageable girl (betula), the…. Alma refers to a girl in puberty capable of conception. Girls could in fact already be given marriage long before actual physical maturity, perhaps even as young as five years old (cf. Lev. 27:5), and it did happen that marriages were already consummated with prepubescent girls.

Source: Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 8 edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry [1997] page 144 – 145

“Child marriages were very common in ancient days. Since marriages were arranged by parents and the consent of parties was not necessary, AGE WAS NOT THE FACTOR in coming to an agreement. The physical factor related only to the consummation of the marriage. Hence, there was usually a waiting period between the agreement and the consummation. It is logical to assume that when a boy and a girl reached the age of puberty, and the sex urge demanded satisfaction, ancient society deemed marriage to be the answer.

Source: A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice By Isaac Klein page 396


“Girls were often married to their uncles on their father’s side, or to their cousins, in order to secure the family’s capital and in the hope that their kin would take good care of them. Minor girls were betrothed by their fathers (by Kidushin, a legally binding commitment) even before they came of age, and usually began living with their husbands-occasionally much older than them- at the age of puberty.”

Source: Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 1 By Mark Avrum Ehrlich page 258

“Betrothal, or engagement, generally occurred at the age eight or nine. Jewish girls typically married at age eleven or twelve and boys at about thirteen or fourteen.

Source: The History of the Jewish People: A Story of Tradition And Change By Jonathan B. Krasner, Jonathan D. Sarnapage volume 1 page 83

And can't this just go on, and on, and on, and on. Like I told you a long time ago, call Jerusalem 911 and complain there. It's their law and I believe it is they and not you who are more qualified to explain to the world what it means and how it was practiced.

[aegsm76]

Wii - not to horn in on this argument, but there are disagreements as to how old Rebecca was at the time of marriage.
Below links show that there is reason to believe she was 14.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar.../12610-rebekah

www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/toledot/942Hal.doc