Christian Fanatic Cerbie Refuted on Numbers 31:18 – Part II

After running away from his embarrassing failure regarding Numbers 31:18, Cerbie disappeared from BloggingTheology for a few days, only to resurface on a different topic to rant about Islam.  Naturally, I confronted the my canine friend with the problem of Numbers 31:18.  Here is the discussion:

Paul, you are the fascist for trying silence opposition to Islam. It’s not a phobia to dislike an ideology that is fundamentally about domination and dhimmitude.

You should be ashamed of yourself and self loathing of your country

Like

  • Cerbie, reasonable people would have a phobia to your Bible. How old were those girls whom your god divided up among his hordes? Still waiting. You can keep running, but I’ll be hot on your trail. 😉

    Like

     
  • youre like a lost little puppy looking for attention. I humiliated you on that thread. You back for more little muhammadan?

    You can run but you can’t hide!!

    Like

     
  • LOL, is that why you keep running like a frightened little dog? How exactly did you embarrass me? Because one translation of your Bible used the word “women”? Bwahahaha, you are a lot stupider than I first assumed!

    Like

     
  • One translation? You mean the one you cited to begin with 😂😂. You mean like ignoring the fact that the Hebrew text says women. You mean like your insistence of emphasising the clarifying noun to indicate they were young and virgins and not already married. But that they were still women.

    And all this to try and defend mo’s rape of a nine year old?

    And even then Christians aren’t under the old covenant of national Israel.

    Yeah, you were humiliated. You should be ashamed of your prophet. You’re just too brainwashed to admit it publically. Deep down it terrifies you.

    Like

     
  • Hahahaha, how dumb are you? The Hebrew in verse 18 uses the word for children, you dingbat! And every translation describes the girls as children! How embarrassing that the best you can do is run away from the evidence and pretend like you refuted anything! What a loyal brain dead zombie you are to your pagan god!

    Like

     
  • “The Hebrew in verse 18 uses the word for children, you dingbat“

    That’s dumb, even for you. You would be correct if the qualifier “women” wasn’t also there. In this instance it means “young” or “virgin”, to distinguish them from the married women.

    But hey, you love being humiliated so why would we expect any honesty from you?

    Like

     
  • Hahahaha, is that what you found out in your frantic Google searches in the last couple of days?

    Every translation describes them as young girls. Stop lying for Jesus for once in your pathetic life. Face it. Your perverted book upholds the enslavement of little girls by your god’s marauding hordes!

    Like

     
  • Run away? You’ve been refuted numerous times now. You just repeat the same nonsense. Not surprising really, your example is the Koran!!

    Like

     
  • Lol says the brain dead zombie who doesn’t provide any references and who has yet to explain why every translation refers to them as children. No wonder you’re a Christian! Lies come naturally to you.

    Like

     
  • Look, I understand your confusion. The qualifier “who has never slept with a man” is meaningless in Islam because your men like to marry and rape female children. So you naturally think of kids. But for the rest of us, those not conditioned to imitate a child molester, we read the text, the text that qualifies the condition as “women” to mean shockingly, women.

    Our insistence on this topic only proves how depraved muhammadans really are

    Like

     
  • You lying again Faiz? Look, I’ll help you out if you like. Look at numbers 31:35. This verse is directly related to verse 8. What is the Hebrew? Spoiler alert, “women”. What is the qualifier, “who has not slept with a man”.

    So your little rant and attempts to islamise verse 18 to defend your pal mo doesn’t work. The term is used to distinguish the virgin women from the married women. Get that? WOMEN. Same in both verses.

    Just face it. You failed. You lose. You’re humiliated.

    Like

     
  • Still stuck on verse 35? Verse 18 clearly describes them as children. Here is Matthew Henry’s commentary:

    “The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry.”

    Face it loser. Your god allowed the taking of little girls as slaves.

    Like

     
  • Verse 18 not 8

    Like

     
  • Since you’re horny cus of the pornverses I quoted to you earlier I would like to ask you again: where in the Islamic sources does it say that Aisha was raped?
    I’m waiting. And while you’re at it, don’t fantasize about donkey chipolatas to much as your filthy pornbook likes to talk about them or you’ll make a mess.
    And I would also loooove to have a SINGLE sources anywhere from before the 20th century criticizing Muhammad (saw) for marrying Aisha at a young age. I’ll be waiting for that one too.

    But since it doesn’t exist (cus no one cared or thought it was wrong) that means all crosstians must have been pedos. And here I thought the holy potato would prevent something like that. I guess he was on a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG holiday.
    The xtian god has got to rest obviously.
    Genesis 2:2
    And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

    Like

     
  • Only a filthy muhammadan pagan would think raping a nine year old is consensual.

    Like

     
  • sounds like you had one or two XXXX too many

    Like

     
  • I am no lover of organised religion full stop – but there’s a difference between challenging dogma and racism. Robinson doesn’t understand that difference.

    Like

     
  • Paulus,

    Which law of the Bible did Muhammad(saw) violated when marrying Aisha(ra) ?

    Like

     
  • any religion thats not organized?

    Like

     
  • Darttimon

    Only if one accepts the absurd premise that Islam is a race. You don’t hear critics of capitalism or socialism being branded as racists.

    Muslims love the victim card. It fuels their ideological motivation as evidenced in the Friday sermons to mobilise the deen. Pathetic really.

    Like

     
  • Paulus read up on racism. You love to play the stupid card.

    Liked by you

     
  • “Muslims love the victim card”
    Except that Western countries have bombed Muslim countries to oblivion you fucking whore.
    So we have every right to play that ‘card’. You can shove your love card up your ass cus no one is buying that. Religion of love my ass.

    I think it’s time to ban this filth from the forum. He can only come up with insults lately. Put the trash where it belongs guys and ban this pornbook lover back to his dungeon a la Emmanuel.

    Like

     
  • As usual the trash can’t come up with any evidence that Aisha was ‘raped’. NOTHING. Nothing but insults.
    Pathetic. According to this pagan all crosstians were pedos and rapists for at least 13 centuries cus no one ever criticized Muhammad (saw) for marrying Aisha at a young age. The only reason this pile of crap says what it says is because it’s living at this time, kissing secularist ass.
    Talks about slavery while its pornbook has the worst treatment for slaves you can imagine. Talks about violence while its pornbook has the most horrific violence you can possibly imagine.
    But it’s all okey. Cus allegedly some pagan mangod was humiliated and hung naked on a giant cross and that magically takes away your sins and the responsibility of ALL your crimes as long as you believe in that.
    Thank God christianity is dead and buried and doesn’t exist anymore and what we have today is just a cult kissing secularist’s ass. That’s about the only good thing the secularist movement has done.

    Liked by you

     
  • Cerbie still can’t explain why his god allowed the rape of young virgin girls. He still can’t explain why Isaac married Rebekkah when she was a 10 year old girl.

    Here is a run down of Cerbie’s pathetic attempts to whitewash Numbers 31:18:

    1. He tried to distance himself from the taking of virgins as slaves, saying that he does not regard Moses as a role model to follow. He didn’t argue that these girls were actually women and therefore it was not the same thing. Thus, he obviously realized that it makes his Bible look bad when little girls are taken as slaves.

    2. But then he was the shown that God actually put a stamp of approval on the whole thing.

    3. This is where he switched gears and made the pathetic argument that the girls were actually women. And this is where he is stuck at the present moment. Despite seeing the evidence and multiple translations, he is still trying to peddle the lie that Numbers 31 is referring to young women and not little girls.

    Like

     
  • You still telling lies, little muhammadan.

    Here’s a recap.

    1. Little muhammadan can only appeal to one noun in isolation from the context. He ignores the fact that the word women is used in verse 18 and 35. He ignores the fact that the very verse distinguishes between married women and virgins. Basically, he ignores everything and relies on semantic fallacies.

    2. Little muhammadan does all this to try and defend muhammad raping a nine year old girl.

    3. Little muhammadan defends muhammad by appealing to what God commands. This is shirk. Just another demonstration of the fact that Muslims actually worship muhammad.

    4. Little muhammadan is outraged that Christians livenunder the new covenant. This takes away any perceived “leverage” this muhammadan perceives he has.

    All in all, it’s just another fail in this little muhammadans attempted apologetics career. Then when he looses, he will just repeat his mantra, “you ran away”. 🤣😂

    Like

     
  • Bwahahaha, the little pagan doggie is trying his best to avoid discussing his backtracking on this embarrassing issue. Why haven’t you provided any references for your claims, you lying trinitarian? Hmmm, I wonder why?

    It seems little Cerbie thinks he knows better than his own scholars, who have all translated verse 18 as “children”. But even if that were not true, one would hope that whatever is left of Cerbie’s brain would be able to logically determine who these girls were. Let’s try shall we? Who was killed during the battle? The men, so we can cross them out. Who was left? The women and children. OK, but then the women who had slept with a man were killed as well. So were the little boys. So who is left then? Come on Cerbie, say it with me. I know you can do it. The…little…girls…Yay, you got it!

    Liked by 1 person

     
  • Cerbie’s humiliation continues…Here we go again!

    The book “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy” (p. 260), quotes the church father Augustine as stating that “…in the proper usage of the Hebrew language all females are habitually called women”.

    So there goes Cerbie’s pathetic defense against his Bible’s depravity. The “women” described in verse 35 were in fact young children, but the Bible still refers to them as “women”. It doesn’t change the fact that they were young, virgin girls.

    And here is an admission from another Christian source:

    “Ancient women had one career path: being wives and mothers… and they began these careers early in life by our standards — often as young teens. But this was how the economy worked back then… and it worked that way for most of human history. So, we should not judge those ancient societies by today’s more egalitarian standards” (http://www.mainsailministries.org/index.php/q-a-a-god-bible-theology-culture/415-why-did-god-spare-the-young-girls-in-numbers-31.html).

    Oops, so they were young girls after all. Poor Cerbie seems to be alone in his deliberate twisting of the Biblical text.

 

31 thoughts on “Christian Fanatic Cerbie Refuted on Numbers 31:18 – Part II

    1. Hahaha, Cerbie is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either the girls were taken as slaves (which is bad) or they were killed (which is also bad). Where will Cerbie go? He will probably end up chasing his tail.

      Like

      1. bro, from theoretical perspective if the pagans had young girls under 10 engaging in sexual activity, then according to the hebrew law , they would have been butchered? So here taps would have been seen as women who engaged in fornication , the law saod to kill them all

        Liked by 1 person

  1. John Stewart

    This person annoys me here is enough evidence to put this argument to rest.

    First Taph is a noun, not a verb.

    Next from the dictionary and Lexicons for טָף (taph)

    From Strong’s Dictionary:
    children (11), girls* (1), infants (1), little children (2), little ones (27).
    http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2945.htm

    From the NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
    Word Origin
    from (02952) (perhaps referring to the tripping gait of children)
    https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/taph.html

    Finally ancient Rabbinical Commentary on the verse:
    “(34) Num. XXXI, 18; it refers to the war captives.
    (35) And though he was a priest, these CHILDREN were PERMITTED IN MARRIAGE.” (Talmud – Mas. Kiddushin 78a:45, page 261 – 262

    A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are liable on her account because of the law [Prohibiting intercourse with] a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her [when she is menstruating] to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. [If] she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. [If] one of those who are unfit [for marriage] has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into priesthood. [If] one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility.” (Mishnah 5:4)

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Paulus

        NAh, I just don’t accept rabbinic Midrash as scripture. C’mon, Britney, you can do better than that. You need to prove it from scripture. But you can’t. Oops, you did it again 😂😂😂

        Perhaps you accept Shi’a and ahmadiyah scholarship

        Like

      2. What a poor excuse! But even without the Talmud or other Jewish sources, the evidence from Christian sources shows that the word “taph” means children. You have been humiliated and pummeled on this point by multiple people now, and you have not brought ANY substantive argument in response. What a loser!

        Like

      3. You are a idiot pauliz. Just read the text carefully.

        17″Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18″But all the girls who have not known man

        Realize u whore bag that TAPH DHAKAR was used for the males. This translation is good vecause it indicate something ks Remaining. “All the girls” will be from AMONG THE TAPHS OR IN ARABIC ATFAAL

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Bro, i think you already know this but notice that “taph dakar” is used when it says KILL all the males FROM AMONG the little ones.

    Indicating there are OTHER little ones remaining and as you point out, the female taphs are the remaining ones

    Liked by 1 person

  3. John Stewart

    @ Paulus It doesn’t matter if YOU accept the Midrash or Talmud you have Jewish scholarship telling you it’s little girls and the word Taph used in the verse means little girls. If you looked at the links I gave women is not mentioned. You now have context, the word itself and a lexicon against you.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is a typical argument that Christians make. They will gladly use the Jewish sources when they suit their purpose, but when they don’t, they cast them aside. As it stands, we don’t need the Talmud in this case, since all English translations of the Bible render the word in verse 18 as “children” or “little ones”. There is no ambiguity here. Cerbie just needs to accept the facts.

      Like

    2. Paulus

      John.

      It appears that you too are appealing to a semantic fallacy. A lexical meaning varies according to its usage in context. Even the lexical source you cited demonstrates this.

      The context is contrasting married women to unammaried women, i.e virgins. Yes, they were young. Some would have been teenagers. No, they weren’t 6 year olds like Muhammad the *beloved* and *sinless* rapist preferred.

      Which is why Britney here has provided a weak and incoherent argument.

      Oops, I did it again 😂😂

      Like

      1. LOL, you see brother John? Look how the demon dog of hell tries to twist the evidence to suit his purpose! And still not a single reference to support his opinion!

        Every single authoritative Christian source agrees that Numbers 31:18 is referring to very young girls. Earlier, Cerbie wasn’t even willing to acknowledge that they were teenagers, but after getting pummeled, he made that concession. But now, he is fighting hard to prevent himself from admitting that these were not teenagers, but 8-11 year old girls. Every Christian and Jewish source states this. Like I said, the only in Christendom who doesn’t believe this is our canine friend Cerbie.

        Ooops, Cerbie did it again! He embarrassed himself!

        Like

  4. John Stewart

    Taph in hebrew does not mean ‘teenager’ it means 8-11 years old

    First so they can stop arguing “women” here is a literal rendering of the verse:
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/num/31/17/t_conc_148018

    Taph referred to a child around the ages of 8-11, and literally it means, child clinging to his mother. That makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? That a child that age has a dependence on his or her mother.
    https://niscu.org.uk/2017/04/03/child-development-in-hebrew/

    From the Expository Dictionary of Bible Words the right-hand column
    “However, all the virgin girls (lit. female children) were to be spared.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=k8GgQqUxPgMC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=age+of+taph&source=bl&ots=EQufuN0oHX&sig=TqxkxFsjbophpPDEqHOzveepjD4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_oaXx94TaAhUCrVkKHfVUAzsQ6AEIYTAI#v=onepage&q=age%20of%20taph&f=false

    Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ By Alfred Edersheim
    ” the taph AND the women in one day”
    https://books.google.com/books?id=jAdPALp6w_YC&pg=PT91&lpg=PT91&dq=taph+is+the+age+of&source=bl&ots=hnLMx8QLce&sig=VI5F3jqMp01pp98xfluHeiRmlc8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJw_LA-YTaAhWprFkKHdaKBDQ4ChDoAQg6MAI#v=onepage&q=taph%20is%20the%20age%20of&f=false

    Like

    1. Paulus

      I think it’s time to demolish these semantic fallacies. Here I cite a lexical note

      “Note that the word includes (or implies) women as well as children, in following: Genesis 47:12; Exodus 12:37 (E), Exodus 10:10; Exodus 10:24 (J), Numbers 32:16; Numbers 32:17 (J E; compare Di on Numbers 32:26).”

      Your reliance on the *base* lexical meaning is erroneous and incorrect.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Paulus

        “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.“- esv

        but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.- niv

        But all the young women who have not had sexual intercourse with a man will be yours.-net

        Like

      2. Hahahaha, getting desperate? None of these translations states that these were mature women, you silly clown!

        Not only that, but you just embarrassed yourself further and exposed how desperate you are to avoid the clear depravity of your Bible. Guess what the NET Bible says in the commentary of this verse regarding the “young women”? Here it is for your humiliation:

        “tn Or “girls.” The Hebrew indicates they would be female children, making the selection easy.”

        http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Num&chapter=31&verse=18#

        Oops, I did it again! ROFTL!!

        Liked by 2 people

      3. you piece of slime, the arabic is saying”FROM THE CHILDREN”

        KILL THE MALES FROM THE CHILDREN, THEN IT SAYS KEEP ALIVE THE FEMALE CHILDREN.

        This is perfectly corresponding to the hebrew

        one good amo against slimes like u is to have ability to read anothee language.

        Text says FROM THE CHILDREN hhahaahahahahahah

        Liked by 1 person

      4. now interestingly the PREPOSITION BAA in the verse discusses corresponds to the arabic min which means from. So from the CHILDREN KILL the boys, who REMAINS FROM THE CHILDR

        Like

  5. Paulus u dog. U think that God being seen or heard implies God is a finite man? You think that the almoghty on judgement day needs to take on form to reveal himself ? Even if God can be seen one will be in SHOCK AND AWE .your god was CHASED around the temple. You are inconsistent piece of pauline dog crap. HOW DOES GOD BEING HEARD OR REVEALING HIMSELF MEAN HE CAN BECOME A FINITE MAN?????

    Like

  6. John Stewart

    Where did you get your lexical note from? All lexicons I’ve consulted the largest I’ve seen is an entire family unit which makes no sense in the context.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. John Stewart

    Nevermind found the note in Brown-Driver-Briggs. This is not referring to Numbers 31:18 this note is referring to Chronicles 31:18. Here is the note in question.

    Chronicles 31:18. **Note that the word includes (or implies) women as well as children, in following: Genesis 47:12; Exodus 12:37 (E), Exodus 10:10; Exodus 10:24 (J), Numbers 32:16; Numbers 32:17 (J E; compare Di on Numbers 32:26).

    Using your same source on Numbers 31:18 the verse in question
    Numbers 31:17 = young boys, and הַטַף בַּנָּשִׁים Numbers 31:18 = YOUNG GIRLS;

    http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2945.htm

    Also, this is not a ‘semantic fallacy’. The verse clearly states young girls.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. He is just dancing around the obvious, brother. He is too proud to admit that he is wrong. Also, if he were to admit it, his laughable criticism of Muhammad (pbuh) would disappear. It’s his arrogance and hate that keep him from admitting the facts.

      Hey Cerbie, you know what your Bible says right? Pride goeth before the fall! 😉

      Like

    2. Paulus

      Yes, it is a semantic fallacy. First, you said it was children. Then you claimed the word was 8-11 year olds. I provided evidence that refutes that semantic fallacy. The word can and does include or imply women as well as children. The lexicon cites six examples.

      That’s enough to demonstrate that your entire premise is incorrect.

      We then need to turn to context to decide. So, give a contextual argument that it is children. And perhaps define what you mean by chidren? “Young girls” in our current context would include people in their twenties sometimes. So, define the terms you use for clarity.

      Britney,

      whats laugahbale about an old man marrying a 6 year old child. Your own scholsrs say this is unislamic. What is laughable about this old man raping a 9 year old? You are one sick muhammadan defending this sinful horrible pagan man.

      But youre a masjidian. Unfortunately its expected of you guys…

      Like

      1. John Stewart

        @ Paulus I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’ve never read a lexicon before. You are right in that a word can have multiple meanings depending on the context. However, in Semetic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Geez etc) you always go with the first meaning unless there is a linguistic reason not to (usually having to do with suffixes or prepositions) The lexicon you quoted was referring to a different passage NOT the word in general. I’m going to break down what it’s saying for you:

        This is what you’re focusing on:
        Chronicles 31:18. **Note that the word includes (or implies) women as well as children, in following: Genesis 47:12; Exodus 12:37 (E), Exodus 10:10; Exodus 10:24 (J), Numbers 32:16; Numbers 32:17 (J E; compare Di on Numbers 32:26).

        Do you see how it’s quoting passages behind it? That is telling you where the exception of women is taking place.

        The lexicon first, talks about that the word is generally never has a plural usage and cites examples. Now look at Numbers 31:18 the verse we are discussing if its girls or women.

        Brown-Driver-Briggs
        …Numbers 31:9,17,18, where note זָכָר בַּטָּ֑ף Numbers 31:17 = young boys, and הַטַף בַּנָּשִׁים NUMBERS 31:18 = YOUNG GIRLS…

        It then cites other examples of it meaning this.
        also Judges 18:21; Judges 21:10; 2 Samuel 15:22; Jeremiah 40:7; Jeremiah 41:16; Jeremiah 43:6; Ezekiel 9:6; 2Chronicles 20:13; 31:18; Ezra 8:21; Esther 3:13; Esther 8:11;

        This is NOT a semantic fallacy the lexicon is saying taph in this context is the young girls.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Brother John, you can see that Cerbie simply cherry-picks from the sources, and ignores everything else. He has done it before. It shows how desperate he is. Every authoritative source says they were children, but he thinks he knows better.

        Like

      3. Hahaha, still fighting for your debunked theory? You have been utterly routed on this matter so many times. It is obvious you are just a lying Christian, who wants to force his a priori views into the text whenever it doesn’t suit his purpose. You are so desperate, and you haven’t presented an iota of evidence to support any of your opinions. Even the translations you appealed to completely embarrassed you! To repeat the NET:

        “tn Or “girls.” The Hebrew indicates they would be female children, making the selection easy.”

        Did you get that? “FEMALE CHILDREN”!!!

        Ooops, it happened again!

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s