Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Welcome to the “straw man” argument museum. A “straw man” argument attempts to counter an argument with a different argument.

The question asked by you was whether or not marriage to a prepubescent girl is a sin. I affirmed it was based upon Biblical data.

Posted By WII
No I received your answer, which took DAYS for you to finally give.

"As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married."

ROTFL!!! Really!!! Wait… RORFL… Wait… ROTFL!!!

You still don’t know how to document your assertions! LOL! Oh wait! That’s because there is NO documentation! LOL!!! Like I said before, your posts have as much substance as a vacuum! LOL!

The closest thing that I “said” compared to your “assertion” is found on January 5 at 8:35. Here is what was said in CONTEXT. Grab a dictionary and look up what “context” means. LOL!

Note the point about this coming from an Islamic apologetic website. This IS part of the “context”

Once more from your site! LOL!
Kaleef K. Karim
“In this article I will establish that the age for marriage, when someone is allowed to get married Biblically, is when one enters puberty. The Bible makes mention the general age of girl allowed for marriage. The reference is found in a parable where God compares Israel to a baby girl whom YHWH took in and then married her off, later.
Ezekiel 16:4 NIV Translation
4 On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths.
5 No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised.
6 “‘Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, “Live!”[a]
7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked.
8 “‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body… –

As you read the passage, the girl attained the age for lovemaking after her breast had grown and pubic hairs, these are clear signs of puberty.

As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married.
…In conclusion, the Bible provides no explicit age for when a girl is allowed to get married. But, what it does give us is that YHWH – God of the Bible, allows for marriage to be consummated when a female has hit puberty. Ezekiel 16 proves, once a girl has hit puberty, she can get married.”
http://discoverthetruth.com/2014/0...inthebible/
End of quote…

ROTFL!!! I was quoting an Islamic apologetic website (a site that appears to be where you got your information LOL!) and how that very website disagreed with your premise (that Rebekah was 3 or that the Bible affirms prepubescent marriage)! ROTFL!!! In short I demonstrated with an Islamic source the absurdity of your “argument”. ROTFL!!! Thank you for the cheap entertainment! LOL!

At least work on your reading comprehension skills. That way you will not look so foolish…
Thanks for proving once again the title of this thread.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Data such as Jesus Himself, correcting the error of Jewish tradition, referencing the creative order of one man and one woman in marriage. The fact that God created the universe in maturity is indicative of Adam and Eve being created in maturity as well. For example, the vegetation had to be created in maturity or the animals created the next day have died due to a lack of food. Adam was to tend to the garden, indicating mature thought processes.

Posted By WII
In other words: "As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married." Right?

Great job! Demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension skills! ROTFL!!!

If this is the level of scholarship muslims have no wonder they accept the teachings of a man who married a six year old girl and consummated that marriage when she was nine.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
As to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah they were indeed married. However, she was not a prepubescent girl. She was a mature young woman. The ESV gets the translation right.

Posted By WII
In other words: "As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married". Thank you.

ROTFL!!! That’s right, thank your Islamic apologist’s site since it was their quote. LOL!!!
Great job demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension skills AGAIN!!! ROTFL!!!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Your argument that he was forty and she was a teen is based upon your wishful imagination because the Biblical text does not give her age. You must prove she was a “teen”. Although, this is interesting. You first attempted to argue she was a three year old girl, I discuss that fallacy below. Now you are trying to argue she was a “teen”. I applaud your reversal, if it’s sincere. I doubt the sincerity though.

Posted By WII
In other words: "As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married." Thank you.

No. In other words you have once again demonstrated your inability to comprehend what you are reading. I hope this is NOT indicative of Texas schools. Did you graduate? What school district? I hope you’re an anomaly…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
your prophet married and consummated that marriage with a prepubescent girl.

Posted By WII
Source?

Sources are not required when the information posited is well known. Are you going to deny this? Will you now attempt to argue your prophet was not a pedophile and that it is not part of your religion?

So tell us, if you can comprehend what’s being written, do you agree with the historical fact that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and consummated that marriage when she was nine?

A simple yes or no will do.

Oh and BTW I have already “sourced” this information. Keep up.

Also, You stated on 01 06 2015 at 09:57 PM:
“He [Muhammad] arranged a marriage, waited 3 years, consummated it. Seems that practice predates Islam. Either he is the most patient pedophile in history or he simply, not realizing that in the 21st century these actions would be judged under a different set of criteria, was following the practices of that time.”

Your “argument” here was that since he waited until Aisha was nine years old he is not a pedophile. What absurd logic.

So you have already “sourced” it yourself! LOL!!!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Next you have tried to make arguments about Mary and Joseph. Again you must prove the ages. How old were they? The Biblical data would indicate they were both mature individuals. Beyond that no age is given. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Facts are stubborn things…

Posted By WII
In other words: "As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married." Thanks.

ROTFL!!! Once again you prove your lack of reading comprehension skills!!! LOL!!!
Like what I DID SAY, “You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Facts are stubborn things…” LOL!!!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
It appears to me that you are grasping at straws to find anything to justify your prophet.

Posted By WII
It appears that we are right back to what I originally told you. There is no explicit age given for marriage in the bible. You could have just agreed with that way back.

LOL!!! Right back to you demonstrating your inability to comprehend what you read! ROTFL!!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
You initially attempted to put forth commentary that Rebekah was 3 years old.
There are two major issues with your logic.
1) You used the commentary of a man, Rashi, that lived thousands of years after the events. He was wrong. Not a good choice for “evidence”.
2) There is no moral equivalency between a man’s commentary and the Bible. The Bible is where my foundation is laid not the comments of humanity.

Posted By WII
Did I say that I agreed with that or did I say that Rashi said that? Page back a little maybe? I did not "attempt" to put forth commentary, I put it forth. You answered and the answer you gave, being that a there is no explicit age given in marriage in the bible, is exactly the correct answer. Otherwise, I am not exactly a follower of "Rashi" whoever he is nor do I especially care what he has to say on the issue.

1st This is the context of what YOU said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny (Post 1350513)
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.

Your response was: Posted 01 05 2015 09:06 AM
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
End Quote

You wanted to “show me” what they believed. Which is something you NOW attempt to distance yourself from. Do you agree with Rashi or not? To clarify for you, did they “practice” marriage at three years old? We will keep it simple… Yes or no?

If yes you’ll have to demonstrate how an 11th century man knew, infallibly, how they “lived under those laws”. “Those laws” were millennia before Rashi. Very poor “scholarship”. Your “proof” has the substance found in a vacuum.

I have already demonstrated the fallacy of Rashi’s commentary and by extension the wishful rationale for using him as a source.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
You have attempted other “straw man” justifications for your prophet’s marriage to and consummation of marriage to a prepubescent girl such as:
1) Arguing that the American Colonies allowed marriages to very young girls. I did not verify the information you posted because it was pointless. Pointless because it has no bearing on the facts. The laws of man are not morally equivalent to the Bible.
2) You tried arguing that it was a cultural norm hundreds and thousands of years ago. This is problematic because:
a. Culture is not morally equivalent to the Bible.
b. Islam has this enshrined in its law, Shariah. It is perpetuated today in Islam because your prophet and his teachings made this a valid marriage for all Mohammedans. Therefore, it is a practice that continues today not just hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

Posted By WII
In other words: As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married. Thanks

ROTFL!!! No. LOL!!! You have demonstrated once again your inability to comprehend what you read! Thanks for the entertainment! LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Paul stated that the ministry is for the perfecting of the saints (Eph. 4:11-12). Then he told the Thessalonians to esteem the ministry very highly (1 Thess. 5:12-13).

The writer of Hebrews said to obey them that have the rule over them and to submit to them (Heb. 13:17).

Posted By WII
Like you, Paul did not know Jesus.

ROTFL!!! That was a “good one”! LOL!
BTW, Paul actually did know Jesus! LOL!
I have also received the baptism of the Holy Ghost and so know Him in that manner.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
So many other scriptures could be given but you will not hearken to these so what’s the point? This is just another straw man argument to keep from dealing with the issue – your prophet married a six year old and consummated that marriage when she was nine.

BTW for someone who whines about being insulted you sure do try to insult a lot…

Posted By WII
Who whined when? I was just noting (for the mods) that whatever you get you have coming because you earned it.

I “have earned it”! LOL!
Like I have “earned a knife fight” right? Feel like “striking” someone’s neck?
ROTFL!!!
Go get some cheese for that whine…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Wow! So your justification is that he didn’t molest her when she was six. He waited until she was nine. The mind is never as resourceful as when it’s trying to justify itself.

Posted By WII
It's a lot more resourceful justifying something someone actually did than it is discussing something someone else did from 1400 years ago.

ROTFL!!! So you DO AGREE and ACCPET the fact that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine! Go to your own source! ROTFL!!!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
According to your deity it’s okay. According to your prophet it’s okay. You believe the quran right?
Surah 33. Al-Ahzab
“21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much.”

Surah 68. Al-Qalam
“4. And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted (standard of) character.”

Your quran says Muhammad’s example is a good example.

Your quran says Muhammad had an exalted character.

I guess that’s where you get the idea that he was such a great guy. He waited until she was nine before molesting her. Really exalted character for Mohammedans to follow…

Welcome back to the straw man museum! You have failed to prove Rebekah was three years old and now you are fixated on saying she was a “teen”. As though that is equivalent to Muhammad consummating a marriage with a nine year old. News flash, it’s not.

Posted By WII
I never tried to "prove" that Rebekah was three years old. The posted source did. You returned with sources that declared NO she was at least in her early teens, to disprove a source that I never agreed with in the first place. Then you followed up by declaring puberty as the biblically acceptable age for marriage. No answer on the early teen and 40-yr-old (Isaac was 37 when his mother died, married Rebecca three years later, no mystery there) marriage but you said enough.

What “source” did I use that said Rebekah was in her “early teens”? What “context” was it given in? I have directed you and others to the source of your statements so keep up and do the same. If you make an assertion, back it up with facts. It’s apparent that you just post whatever is convenient at the time.

Are you referring to the same one where I, in context, was pointing out the fallacy of your absurd logic? The same one where the Islamic apologetic site disagreed with your premise?

ROTFL!!!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Your agenda is to make them as young as possible. In this way you can continue trying to equate them with the “good example” your deity says was set.

Posted By WII
I can't "make" anything other than what it historically is however the 3-yr-old thing cannot be traced either to Texas or Islam and as such search for an agenda elsewhere.

My agenda was to obtain your personal perspective on marriage age from a biblical standpoint, previously asked but not answered.

Maybe you should look up what a "theory laden observation" is?

Seems I can make you state the truth even if it takes a week to get it out of you. You have stated it. "As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married."

Are you now suggesting that “they” did practice marriage with three year olds? Above you said:
Posted By WII
“I never tried to "prove" that Rebekah was three years old...” [/QUOTE]

Now it sounds like you are – “I can't "make" anything other than what it historically is…”. Please try to keep your story straight. That type of marriage cannot be traced to Judaism either. That Islamic apologetic website admits as much.

What CAN be traced to your prophet is the prepubescent marriage and consummation by Muhammad.

I have told you time and time again, that the Biblical standard is the standard set By Jesus who pointed to the creation narrative. Remember? One man and one woman who are mature. So once again we see your disingenuous declarations…

ROTFL!!! Once again you point out that you cannot comprehend what you read. You seem to like the reference from the Islamic apologetic website that disagreed with your presentation.

In case you have “forgotten” already allow me to once again reveal this.

Once more from your site! LOL!
Kaleef K. Karim
“In this article I will establish that the age for marriage, when someone is allowed to get married Biblically, is when one enters puberty. The Bible makes mention the general age of girl allowed for marriage.
…
As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married.
…In conclusion, the Bible provides no explicit age for when a girl is allowed to get married. But, what it does give us is that YHWH – God of the Bible, allows for marriage to be consummated when a female has hit puberty. Ezekiel 16 proves, once a girl has hit puberty, she can get married.”
http://discoverthetruth.com/2014/0...inthebible/
End Quote

So easy even a cave man can comprehend it.
Pointing out the logical fallacy of YOUR evidences! LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
BTW a nine year old is just over half the age of a fourteen year old. Roughly 65% of the age of a fourteen year old. Common sense lets us know that there is a huge difference between a nine year old and a fourteen year old in maturity. Therefore, once again there is no moral equivalency for your premise. Your straw man argument is once again reveled to be a logical fallacy.

Posted By WII
We are not talking about "common sense". We are talking about YOUR bible according to YOU setting the age of marriage at puberty, be it 7 or 17. Now you want to apply "common sense" to dispute what you earlier stated was your own interpretation of the bible's position? If you are, it's too late for that.

I agree we are not talking about “common sense”. There has been very little of that displayed by the “evidences” put forward by you. On the one hand those “evidences” support a Jewish marriage of three years of age. On the other hand the same site specifically states that the Biblical marriage is, well let’s use the quote you are so fond of:
“As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married”.

Therefore, there is no common sense to the evidences at all.

As far as “me” setting the age – once again where was that ever said? You can blather on and say “I said” whatever. That does not make it so. If you are going to make an assertion about what someone has said then document your assertion. The reason why you can’t do that is because it was not said. You are at best misrepresenting what was said. Thanks for once again proving the title of this thread. Of course in islam that’s okay. Too bad for you there is another world that actually demands integrity.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Oh so know the “religion of peace” wants to speak of a “knife fight”. Typical of islam. It just so happens that Mohammedans are up to it once again!

An apparent terrorist-related shooting at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo left at least 12 people dead and wounded 10 more in Paris on Wednesday, police said.

Posted By WII
Yeah speaking of straw men that's relevant to this discussion.

So you don’t like being quoted in context? Too bad.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Welcome back to the straw man express! Please note what I said. Your “Logic” is to ignore the clear teaching of the text… Not surprising. I guess in islam it’s okay to “invent” whatever you want. Well not exactly anything you want but it is okay to “invent” things and of course that’s not a lie right?

“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol.3:857 p.533)

Situational ethics must be highly “exalted” in islam…

Wow! Where did I say “teen”? Wait I know! You must have found Rashi’s crystal ball! LOL! Regardless of Rebekah’s age she was NOT a nine year old girl. That is clear from the Biblical text. There you go with your inventions again.

Once again, welcome to the “straw man” show where we watch WII tap dance all around the point. Watch as he sophomorically attempts to juggle meaningless data to try to justify his religion. Even if Rebekah was fourteen there is a world of difference between that and the example set by Muhammad, the man with an exalted character. ROTFL. Aisha was nine years old which is just a little less than half that age (technically it’s about 65% of that age – fourteen).

Here’s a hint. Try to find something biblically that is equivalent. Oh wait. You can’t! Oh well according to islam you can invent something and it’s not a lie.

Posted By WII
I did. Actually you did, firmly and directly. "As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married."

But I already told YOU that. You're just a week behind.

ROTFL!!! This again! Wait… ROTFL!!!

Get some help with your reading comprehension! LOL!
And learn how to document your assertions and keep them in context. Find a dictionary and learn what context is so you don’t continue to look foolish. Just trying to help you out here…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
I said “I will stick with the biblical text”. You said “me too”. It appears by this that you agree to stick with the text. Yet, what do we find? You immediately follow up with I will go with “the consensus of the majority”. It is clear that you are not speaking of the Majority Text because the Majority text is a New Testament text. Thus, you said you would stick with the text and immediately move to something other than the text to attempt, poorly, to establish what you apparently need.

Posted By WII
OK you are kind of slow so let me explain point by point.

The text: All the stuff that Rebecca can do, discussed and pointed out by you several times.

No age though.

Consensus of the majority: At or near puberty, minimum early teens. Which you also said.

LOL! Another one of your “insults”…
Okay so you said you would stick with the Biblical text but now decide to follow the majority. Must be why you’re in islam. A sheeple for your imam. LOL! Glad you can at least acknowledge the many mature things Rebekah can do.

Oh and there you go with unfounded assertions once again. I never said what you have asserted. This is at best a prevarication on your part. We’ll chalk it up to your lack of reading comprehension and analytical skills. Must be why you can’t figure out if the Jews practiced marriages at three years old or not… LOL!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Since you once again failed to document your assertion it’s left up to the reader to determine what you are inventing this time. It seems to me you are trying to establish a premise by the logical fallacy known as “argument ad populum”. This is the belief that it must be true because it’s popular. The people of Noah’s day found out the hard way about that kind of nonsensical logic.

Posted By WII
Did I invent something? I will file the patent immediately.

Too late for that. Muhammad already beat you to it.
“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol.3:857 p.533)

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny

Maybe you should look up what a theory laden observation is. You are a classic example.

The text does not give her age. It does let us know she was physically able to water 10 camels after a long journey. Since I documented earlier this is up to 20 gallons she would have had to bring up to 200 gallons of water for the camels alone. She went to the well alone. She was fully cognizant of her family’s state of affairs by knowing they could take care of Abraham’s servants and the animals with him.

Posted By WII
Maybe you should look up what a theory laden observation is. You are basing your conclusion on the assumption that each and every camel was filled up with the maximum amount of water that a camel can hold. Ever seen a camel? They abound here.

When their handlers give them water they don't give them "20 gallons each". LOL

Once again misrepresenting what I said… Nothing new. Thanks for confirming the title of this thread.

Here is what I said (01 04 2015 06:06 PM):
Note: this is called documenting an assertion…

“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

They drink till their satiated which scientifically is up to 20 gallons. Which is exactly what I said.

Hopefully they have an elementary school “over there”. Perhaps you could try to get some help with reading comprehension. I would say get some help with intellectual honesty but that does not seem to be a very high character trait among muslims.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
ROTFL! Secondly you definitely need to find a Bible believing church somewhere and start learning proper exegesis. It’s abundantly clear all you have is an agenda.

Matthew 23:3
For they say and do not (legousin kai ou poiousin). “As teachers they have their place, but beware of following their example” (Bruce). So Jesus said: “Do not ye after their works “ (mē poieite). Do not practice their practices. They are only preachers. Jesus does not here disapprove any of their teachings as he does elsewhere. The point made here is that they are only teachers (or preachers) and do not practice what they teach as God sees it.

See how easy that was? So easy even a cave man can do it. Unless that cave man has an agenda…

Posted By WII
An agenda like say twisting verses to mean one thing when they actually, in

multiple versions and translations, say the opposite thing? I am thinking you are not quite the caveman you think you are.

NIV sez

2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Auth "queen james version" sez
2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Young's literal translation sez
2 saying, `On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees;
3 all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not;
OH and "queen james" version (appears there is an authorized one and another one for the regular folks LOL):
Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

You already got the clever little link. Go back to where I sent you to bible study if you have difficulty finding this again.

Summary: Those who developed the Talmud WERE the ministry and Jesus validated that.

Which is what I said. In a week or so, or even if this goes to 10,000 pages, you will eventually admit that too, like you (good God FINALLY already) admitted that there is no minimum age for marriage in the bible.

This is, of course and naturally, in conflict (with)your earlier "look how much worse you are than me" declarations.

Sez you to me: "The Bible is in perfect harmony with itself. It needs no other standard. You, on the other hand, prefer to torture the text to make it say what

you want to say"

Were you being deliberately or accidentally deceptive in the pompous declaration above? Do you tell fibbies then forget what you said? Do you and "your special friend Bruce" develop your own translations for yourselves?

Perhaps you should not play "cavemen with Bruce" alone at home anymore.

ADVICE: When you do play "caveman with Bruce" at home keep it to yourself, don't publicly giggle while you are doing it, be consistent if you are going to tell fibs, and post pics elsewhere!

“Summary”
1) You apparently can’t make up your mind if you believe the Jews practiced marriages to three year olds or not. You said above:
a. “I will save you the research and show you how those who lived under and practiced these laws interpreted them.”
i. This is a declarative statement.
b. “I never tried to "prove" that Rebekah was three years old.”
i. You tried to prove how “those who lived under and practiced these laws interpreted them”.
c. “I can't "make" anything other than what it historically is however the 3-yr-old thing cannot be traced either to Texas or Islam”
i. The implication is that it can be traced elsewhere – Judaism.
You appear conflicted. Which is it?
2) You often misrepresent what has been posted.
a. How many false assertions have been made concerning what you claim I said? Too many to count. Must be why you fail to document your assertions.
3) You continue to miserably fail to document your assertions.
4) You apparently do not know how to spell a simple word like “says”. You spelled it “sez”. This after insulting someone else’s typo of “mush” for “much”. There were others as well. In Christianity this would be called hypocrisy.
5) You have no understanding of hermeneutics or exegesis. This is witnessed above.
6) Those who developed the Talmud were Rabbi’s not necessarily Levites. Come on keep up. No minister has the right to change the Bible. I understand your dilemma. It takes common sense to understand this…
7) LOL – Jesus validated the Talmud ROTFL!!! That’s a good one! You do know when it was written don’t you?

Here is a quote for you (this will also help you learn how to document your assertions. Of course this also demands that your assertions be correct LOL):
“In his early years Rabbi Judah, the son of the Patriarch Simon ben Gamaliel II, traveled to the scattered yeshivas and it grieved him to observe this disunity and schism. It would seem that in place of one Torah there were several Torahs, each in contradiction with the others. What was kosher in one yeshiva was not in another; what was clean and permitted in one place was unclean and prohibited in another. It was then that Rabbi Judah conceived the idea of collecting all laws and discussions concerning them and arranging them in one systematic code.”
The Talmud, An Analytical Guide to its History and Teachings, Isaac Unterman, Bloch Publishing Company, New York, Third Printing 1971, P 59

This was in the second century AD. LOL. There was no Talmud when Jesus walked the earth to “validate”. ROTFL!!!
Grasping at straws once again..

8) And there you go once again making an assertion without documentation. You stated:
a. “like you (good God FINALLY already) admitted that there is no minimum age for marriage in the bible.” Another false claim by you.
I guess that’s okay in islam. Invent whatever saying you want. Well fortunately there is another “universe” where people actually request real scholarship.
9) Now to your other failed assertion about my “pompous declaration”. The Bible is indeed in perfect harmony with itself. Thanks for underscoring your lack of understanding hermeneutical and exegetical principles. We already understood this from your multitudes of eisegesis examples. Don’t know any Bruce. You must be referring to A. T. Robertson, the renowned Greek scholar that wrote Robertson’s Word Pictures. You do understand he was a well-known and highly respected Greek scholar right? Apparently not. But thanks for demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension once again and your memory problem.
Here is a portion of what he said:
a. “The point made here is that they are only teachers (or preachers) and do not practice what they teach as God sees it.”
Here is what the NIV says:
b. “But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”
Hmmm… Seems like the translators made the same observation as A. T. Robertson. LOL!
10) Muhammad was a pedophile. His consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old is well known and common knowledge.
11) The quran states that he had an “exalted character”.
a. Surah 68. AlQalam: “4. And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted (standard of) character.”
12) The quran states that his example is a “good example” to follow.
a. Surah 33. AlAhzab: “21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much.”
13) Mohammedans across the globe follow that example and are pedophiles because it, pedophilia, is inherent within that depraved religion.
a. “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.
i. (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” [alTalaaq 65:4]
ii. 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.”
14) You have miserably failed to demonstrate any kind of “moral equivalency” because there is none.
15) You continue to defend the pedophilia of your prophet and other Mohammedans.
16) What a depraved religion you have.

[shazeep]

p43, Pliny

[Abiding Now]

[Walks_in_islam]

The closest thing that I “said” compared to your “assertion” is found on January 5 at 8:35.

Note the point about this coming from an Islamic apologetic website. This IS part of the “context”

Once more from your site! LOL!
Kaleef K. Karim
“In this article I will establish that the age for marriage, when someone is allowed to get married Biblically, is when one enters puberty. The Bible makes mention the general age of girl allowed for marriage. The reference is found in a parable where God compares Israel to a baby girl whom YHWH took in and then married her off, later.
Ezekiel 16:4 NIV Translation
4 On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths.
5 No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised.
6 “‘Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, “Live!”[a]
7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked.
8 “‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body… –
As you read the passage, the girl attained the age for lovemaking after her breast had grown and pubic hairs, these are clear signs of puberty.

OK You did NOT agree with that. So you still do not have a position, one way or the other, except your own subjective application on a case by case basis, of what constitutes a valid biblical marriage or not.
Somehow I mistakenly believed that you had taken a position on something. Admission, I was wrong. I forgot that you are apostolic. You reserve the right to apply your own set of subjective standards on a case by case basis. In that case, let me correct my assumption and return to my previous belief that though you have a great deal to say about wrong, you actually do not have a clear message as to what is right. Accepted. Certainly an OOPS on my part.
Quiet note: Good thing you scrambled out of taking a stand. My turn to laugh has arrived however


I was quoting an Islamic apologetic website (a site that appears to be where you got your information) and how that very website disagreed with your premise (that Rebekah was 3 or that the Bible affirms prepubescent marriage)!

At least work on your reading comprehension skills. That way you will not look so foolish…
Thanks for proving once again the title of this thread.

Yes thank you. Again, I made a mistake. My mistake was in assuming you believed something was RIGHT and could declare “this is wrong” and replace it with “this is the right thing to do or right set of circumstances”. It appears that you have a great deal to say about WRONG but little to replace it with what you can declare, from your bible, as RIGHT. It does appear foolish, and I feel foolish, assuming that an apostolic such as yourself was capable of stating the right rather than just pointing out the wrong.
How dumb, right?

Quote:

Demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension skills!

It’s worse than that. I read it but erred deeply in believing that you had taken a stand on this. The giggling and stuttering in your posts makes it a bit difficult to comprehend if you are declaring something or giggling about it however this is no excuse. The error is mine alone.
I will not assume that you specifically believe or stand for anything again.

In other words you have once again demonstrated your inability to comprehend what you are reading. I hope this is NOT indicative of Texas schools. Did you graduate? What school district? I hope you’re an anomaly…

Didn’t finish high school actually. It was boring.

So tell us, if you can comprehend what’s being written, do you agree with the historical fact that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and consummated that marriage when she was nine?

The marriage contract was signed at age 6, and the marriage was consummated at age 9. I have stated this many times in this thread.


Your “argument” here was that since he waited until Aisha was nine years old he is not a pedophile. What absurd logic.

My assumption was that waiting until Aisha was 9 years old and staying married to her until he died does not seem to fit your label of pedophilia (a term developed about 1200 years later).
I will accept the label of absurd if comparing the label pedophile to the actions of the labelled falls under that umbrella.

Posted By WII
It appears that we are right back to what I originally told you. There is no explicit age given for marriage in the bible. You could have just agreed with that way back.
LOL!!! Right back to you demonstrating your inability to comprehend what you read!
ROTFL!!

I’m sorry. My mistake was assuming that you affirmed the comparison to the parable in Ezekiel on this. Mistake admitted and responsibility accepted. Time to play. Finally. TBC

[Walks_in_islam]

I have told you time and time again, that the Biblical standard is the standard set By Jesus who pointed to the creation narrative. Remember? One man and one woman who are mature. So once again we see your disingenuous declarations…

As pointed out, this is still missing criteria of marriage because “who are mature” was added. What’s a jot here and a tittle there though right?

Last chance to take Ezekiel's parable as "biblical definition". No? Well alrighty then.

Your earlier reference:

And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Context of this passage (thank you so much for helping me understand the concept of context as if I friggin needed it)

At the time, there were two schools of teaching on divorce. Original law was general.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house.

The school of Rabbi Shammai taught that uncleanness meant sexual immorality, and taught that this was the only valid reason for divorce.

The school of Rabbi Hillel taught that uncleanness to mean any sort of indiscretion; even to the point where for some rabbis, burning a husband's breakfast was considered valid grounds for divorce.

These two schools were the keepers of the oral law, which was eventually codified as the Talmud. Both sides were preserved to today.

Jesus affirmed the school of Rabbi Shammai in this particular case.

In this context (can I ask you to look that up - context) I tell you again this passage has nothing to do with marriage or who is marriageable. This is a clarification of two different schools of thought in existence at the time as to what constitutes grounds for divorce.

I told you earlier that prepubescent marriages were historically practiced and historically accepted, predating Islam and documented back to ancient Jewish law. By ancient Jewish law, the exact law in existence at the time of Jesus, here is what the same two schools taught about marriage and age of marriage, in reference to first intercourse and menstruation:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_64.html

But you generously searched everywhere, Talmud, all sorts of other sources right? My turn to laugh. Here’s your link, both schools predate Jesus however they are the only schools that were in existence for Jesus to order followed, in your assigned “bible study” passage, which wasn’t assigned to compare you to a hypocrite but was assigned to reference later.

Can’t really use the dates here OH Anointed One (like I can say for instance noting that the term “pedophile” popped up in the 19th century). To summarize (I don’t want you to strain your vast comprehension skills or anything) I will give you a nice reference table.

Mishnah One (Niddah Chapter 10)
1) If a young girl, whose age of menstruation has not arrived, married:
a) Bet Shammai says: she is allowed four nights;
b) And Bet Hillel says: until the wound is healed.
2) If the age of her menstruation has arrived and she married:
a) Bet Shammai says: she is allowed the first night;
b) And Bet Hillel says: four nights, until after Shabbat.
3) If she had observed blood while she was still in her father's house:
a) Bet Shammai ruled: she is only allowed the obligatory marital intercourse,
b) And Bet Hillel says: all that night.

Is there something about my earlier point that maybe you missed? Though Jesus AFFIRMED Shammai on grounds for DIVORCE, where (again) did Jesus address marriage and marriage age? Jesus did not, and both schools of teaching include and teach and set rules on marriage to girls before the start of menstruation.

Summary: You are mentally numb if you believe that ancient Jews did not take young girls captive and allow marriage to them (or young Jewish girls for that matter) before puberty and you are mentally numb if you claim that this practice was prohibited in any religious text or teaching (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) from times predating Jesus through the ministry of Jesus through the 18th century.

So: God never wrote it down or saw to it that it was written down. Jesus never addressed it. You define this as sinful based on what?

I already knew this though. I just wanted to let you giggle on and plod on for a few pages. There is nothing more entertaining than watching an “apostolic” making a fool of himself pompously discussing historical right and wrong while applying current standards to historial events, made all the more interesting if said apostolic is giggling in “triumph” about it.

Though you reject the words of “those who sit in the seat of Moses” you cannot ”….torture the passage…” (all 4-5 versions of it) where Jesus specifically directed that their teachings be followed. The fact that Jesus affirmed one school vs. the other on divorce, and that the two schools had slightly different rules about “wedding night blood” does not change the fact that there was ancient law from BOTH schools allowing and setting rules for marriage to young girls (prepubescent), this was in place at the time of Jesus, and there is not a single biblical passage overturning those laws.

Especially a passage that can be attributed to Jesus.

Definitely TBC, I’m not actually done with your genius postings quite yet.

[Walks_in_islam]

“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

They drink till their satiated which scientifically is up to 20 gallons. Which is exactly what I said.

Hopefully they have an elementary school “over there”. Perhaps you could try to get so me help with reading comprehension. I would say get some help with intellectual honesty but that does not seem to be a very high character trait among muslims.

That’s what I said you said. Perhaps you will have the opportunity to travel someday and also come to understanding that watering a camel is actually no big deal.

Little children all over the world carry water to their families. There are even pictures! You know? Pictures that demonstrate that the ability to carry water does not imply "maturity". Here are a couple dozen. Kids of all ages. So what if she could water a camel? Do you have conclusive evidence of her age?

https://www.google.com.sa/search?q=c...%3B2272%3B1704

This is what you say:

Matthew 23:3
For they say and do not (legousin kai ou poiousin). “As teachers they have their place, but beware of following their example” (Bruce). So Jesus said: “Do not ye after their works “ (mē poieite). Do not practice their practices. They are only preachers. Jesus does not here disapprove any of their teachings as he does elsewhere. The point made here is that they are only teachers (or preachers) and do not practice what they teach as God sees it.

Add to this:

"The Bible is in perfect harmony with itself. It needs no other standard. You, on the other hand, prefer to torture the text to make it say what
you want to say"

NIV sez

2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Auth "queen james version" sez
2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Young's literal translation sez
2 saying, `On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees;
3 all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not;
OH and "queen james" version (appears there is an authorized one and another one for the regular folks LOL):
Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

So who tortured the text again?

“Summary”
1) You apparently can’t make up your mind if you believe the Jews practiced marriages to three year olds or not. You said above:
a. “I will save you the research and show you how those who lived under and practiced these laws interpreted them.”
i. This is a declarative statement.
b. “I never tried to "prove" that Rebekah was three years old.”
i. You tried to prove how “those who lived under and practiced these laws interpreted them”.
c. “I can't "make" anything other than what it historically is however the 3-yr-old thing cannot be traced either to Texas or Islam”
i. The implication is that it can be traced elsewhere – Judaism.
You appear conflicted. Which is it?

Here it is. Told you, it predates Jesus.

CHAPTER X

MISHNAH. IF A YOUNG GIRL, WHOSE AGE OF MENSTRUATION10 HAS NOT ARRIVED, MARRIED, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE IS ALLOWED11 FOUR NIGHTS,12 AND BETH HILLEL RULED: UNTIL THE WOUND IS HEALED.13 IF THE AGE OF HER MENSTRUATION HAS ARRIVED14 AND SHE MARRIED, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE IS ALLOWED11 THE FIRST NIGHT, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: FOUR NIGHTS, UNTIL THE EXIT OF THE SABBATH.15 IF SHE HAD OBSERVED A DISCHARGE WHILE SHE WAS STILL IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE,16 BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE IS ONLY ALLOWED THE OBLIGATORY MARITAL INTERCOURSE,17 AND BETH HILLEL RULED: ALL THAT18 NIGHT.
2) You often misrepresent what has been posted.
a. How many false assertions have been made concerning what you claim I said? Too many to count. Must be why you fail to document your assertions.

Definitely my wrong. It was wrong for me to ever assume or assert that you actually believe IN anything.

3) You continue to miserably fail to document your assertions.
LOL..........really? Which one was not documented?
4) You apparently do not know how to spell a simple word like “says”. You spelled it “sez”. This after insulting someone else’s typo of “mush” for “much”. There were others as well. In Christianity this would be called hypocrisy.
I yield in humility to your vast expertise on hypocrisy!
5) You have no understanding of hermeneutics or exegesis. This is witnessed above.
My understanding or not understanding has not really helped you demonstrate sin
6) Those who developed the Talmud were Rabbi’s not necessarily Levites. Come on keep up. No minister has the right to change the Bible. I understand your dilemma. It takes common sense to understand this…
I wonder if you considered that "change the bible" thing when you and bruce rewrote the above passage?
7) LOL – Jesus validated the Talmud ROTFL!!! That’s a good one! You do know when it was written don’t you?
The sourced schools of thought, at least in the section applicable to this discussion, were well-documented and they predate Jesus.
Here is a quote for you (this will also help you learn how to document your assertions. Of course this also demands that your assertions be correct LOL):
“In his early years Rabbi Judah, the son of the Patriarch Simon ben Gamaliel II, traveled to the scattered yeshivas and it grieved him to observe this disunity and schism. It would seem that in place of one Torah there were several Torahs, each in contradiction with the others. What was kosher in one yeshiva was not in another; what was clean and permitted in one place was unclean and prohibited in another. It was then that Rabbi Judah conceived the idea of collecting all laws and discussions concerning them and arranging them in one systematic code.”
The Talmud, An Analytical Guide to its History and Teachings, Isaac Unterman, Bloch Publishing Company, New York, Third Printing 1971, P 59

This was in the second century AD. LOL. There was no Talmud when Jesus walked the earth to “validate”. ROTFL!!!

What would be really cool here (for you) is if the differing schools of thought at the time of Jesus somehow were somehow in conflict in regards to marriage as they were in regards to divorce. Unfortunately both schools seem to allow it. It would have been smart of you to find this though, it would have saved you a lot of trouble.

Grasping at straws once again..

Pretending the teachings at the time of Jesus, which Jesus validated, are not the source of the Talmud is grasping.

8) And there you go once again making an assertion without documentation. You stated:
a. “like you (good God FINALLY already) admitted that there is no minimum age for marriage in the bible.” Another false claim by you.
I guess that’s okay in islam. Invent whatever saying you want. Well fortunately there is another “universe” where people actually request real scholarship.
Yep, you haven't stated anything as to definition of "marriageable"

Too late for that. Muhammad already beat you to it.
“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol.3:857 p.533)

I wonder what Bukhari would say about asserting a practice then laying out the laws for it in spite of some super-religious apostolic denying they exist?

PS: For they say and do not (legousin kai ou poiousin). “As teachers they have their place, but beware of following their example” (Bruce). <-------that's "bruce" remember now?

[BrotherEastman]

WII What is your honest opinion about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=CY4gNBf2n3o