Christian Fanatic Cerbie Gets Refuted on Numbers 31:18 – Part III

After getting pummeled on the textual evidence in Numbers 31:18, Cerbie found himself confronted with the evidence yet again.  This time, a fellow Christian named “Erasmus” (whom I call “Ignoramus) – yes, I have a pet name for most of the Islamophobes), tried to help.  Unfortunately, both apologists failed to provide any proof that the females mentioned in Numbers 31:18 were young women.  In fact, after dancing around the issue for so long, Cerbie finally admitted that these were not “women”.  But, it was not a full admission.  Cerbie’s next excuse was that these females were mature “teenagers”, and not younger girls.  Here is the discussion.

 

 

  • “Finding out that your god allowed little girls to be taken as slaves. ”

    Females could only be given in marriage as debt slaves in the law of Moses. Not as children.

    Like

    • Hey Atlas, lookie here! Cerbie’s help finally arrived!

      “Females could only be given in marriage as debt slaves in the law of Moses. Not as children.”

      Oh brother, another Christian trying to cover-up what his Bible actually says. Cerbie already tried this, Ignoramus. And boy did he try! But alas, I showed him proof that these were young girls who were taken as slaves.

      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).

      Like

       
    • Finally- the muhammadan admits that they weren’t raped nine year olds like his beloved Aisha!!

      It took a while, but the truth finally gets revealed.

      Like

       
    • “Finally- the muhammadan admits that they weren’t raped nine year olds like his beloved Aisha!!

      It took a while, but the truth finally gets revealed.”

      Bwhahahaha, Cerbie is completely deluded! Still in denial about the fact that your god allowed the rape of young, virgin girls?

      I completely demolished your lie that they were “women”, based on your obsession with verse 35. The learned scholars of your religion understood that just because one verse refers to them as “women” does not change the fact that they were very young girls. Then I showed you an admission from a more honest Christian source that young girls were considered old enough for sexual intercourse. Thus, when combining the textual evidence and simple logic (which we know our canine friend Cerbie completely lacks), we come to the conclusion that your pagan god allowed the rape of young girls. The men and boys were all killed, and so were the non-virgin women. The only group that is left is young girls. The poor man-worshiper is still clinging to his pathetic excuses, whereas the more learned members of his religion have admitted the undeniable truth. Poor, poor crosstian.

      Like

       
    • The only person deluded is you little pork chop. Your “sources” at best demonstrate they were teenagers, and only then sometimes, not nine year old girls. I’m happy to accept that since it demolishes your lies nonetheless to defend muhammad.

      Furthermore, the text says nothing about rape. That’s your little muhammadan interpolation because you are ashamed that your example raped a nine year old girl.

      Bwahahhaha- poor little muhammadan humiliated again

      Liked by you

       
    • “The only person deluded is you little pork chop. Your “sources” at best demonstrate they were teenagers, and only then sometimes, not nine year old girls. I’m happy to accept that since it demolishes your lies nonetheless to defend muhammad.”

      Hahahaha, so Cerbie finally admits the truth! They weren’t “women” after all!

      Oh but an admission by Cerbie wouldn’t be complete without his own pathetic excuse-making. So, it was okay to take teenage girls as slaves??? Hypocrisy much, Cerbie? What difference does it make if they were not 9 years old, and were instead 12 years old?

      Moreover, you are assuming that they were all teenagers, but that is not necessarily the case. As I showed, the word in question means “children”. That would include young girls of any age. You’re just too embarrassed to admit it.

      “Furthermore, the text says nothing about rape. That’s your little muhammadan interpolation because you are ashamed that your example raped a nine year old girl.

      Bwahahhaha- poor little muhammadan humiliated again”

      LOL, the deluded crosstian thinks he has saved his Bible. In fact, you destroyed it completely by showing the depravity!

      Naturally, because you are so embarrassed, you now are denying that these girls were taken as sex slaves. I’m sure you prefer to think that they were taken as “maids” or something, like most modern interpreters, but the fact is that there was nothing in Biblical law that prohibited taking wives as young as 10 years old, and maybe even younger. That is why the rabbis estimated Rebekkah’s age to be between 8 and 14 years old when she married Isaac.

      Bwhahahaha, Cerbie the dog of hell is humiliated again!!

      Like

       
    • You still trying to save face? You’re so humiliated you think a 12 year old is a teenager! You are so desperate to lower the age as much as possible to try and defend a 54 year old raping a nine year old. Your prophet.

      Now, take off your muhammadan spectacles. I said I would happily accept the premise of the source you cited that said the virgin women sometimes were teenagers. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but I’ll accept it for the sake of argument to demolish your pathetic attempts to defend old no marrying a child bride.

      Then you still moan and abandon this said source to try and argue that they were actually children. Do you have no honesty? You’re still labouring a lost point- the noun “young” is paralleled with women against the married women. Ergo, virgins. Not kids.

      Now, please stop embarrassing yourself and abandon you came urine drinking child raping prophet. You’ll feel much better once you do and you’ll be far less angry.

      Like

       
    • LOL Cerbie, don’t you think you’ve made enough of a fool of yourself? The Hebrew word in Numbers 31 means CHILDREN, not TEENAGERS. So, the girls that were taken as slaves would have been in a diverse range of ages. They could have included teenagers, but not necessarily so. Here it is again:

      NAS Exhaustive Concordance
      Word Origin
      from taphaph
      Definition
      children
      NASB Translation
      children (11), girls* (1), infants (1), little children (2), little ones (27).

      Here is another explanation from the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon:

      “…here note זָכָר בַּטָּ֑ף Numbers 31:17 = young boys, and הַטַף בַּנָּשִׁים Numbers 31:18 = young girls;”

      See? Just accept the truth, you moron. You god had all the Midianites killed except for the female children. That is what the text says. The men were killed. The boys were killed. The women were killed. Who is left? Stop beating around the bush you man-worshiping pagan! You have been humiliated over and over again in this discussion. Your delusions will not save you. Hahahahaha!!!

      Like

       
    • You do realise that you are relying on a semantic fallacy. Words get their meaning from the context.

      I’ve told you already. You’d be correct if the word “women” wasn’t there and if it wasn’t contrasted against the married women. Who’s left? Unmarried women. Virgins.

      Appealing to what a word *can* mean does not equate to demonstrating that it does mean that in this context. Thus far, you’ve not attempted to deal with context. Why? Cause it don’t suit your muhammadan cause to defend the rape of nine year old Aisha.

      The only embarrassment is your juvenile reluctance to admit when your wrong. Even the sources you cited as proof didn’t prove your point. It’s a lost cause. Just like Islam.

      Now, back to kissing your stone little pagan…(I’m sure you practice in front of the mirror for the hope of perfecting your craft before embarking on hajj)

      Like

       
    • What I realize is that you are a lying, man-worshiping little twirp. You’ve abundantly proven that with you’re constant backtracking and moving of the goalposts.

      I have shown you direct evidence what the word means, you idiot. You just don’t like the truth, so you are dancing around it. If everyone was killed (men, non-virgin women, boys), then obviously only the girls are left. Stop dancing around the obvious. Your lies will not fool anyone, except yourself. Your pathetic excuses only damage your reputation and your religion more and more. Hahahahaha!

      Like

       
  • The text itself determines what it is saying. So you have not provided proof of anything.

    Like

  • Paulus:

    “Furthermore, the text says nothing about rape.

    That’s your little muhammadan interpolation because you are ashamed that your example raped a nine year old girl.

    Bwahahhaha- poor little muhammadan humiliated again.”

    Well said Paulus. I agree. The truth hurts.

    Like

    • Indeed it does. You morons tried to claim that these girls were grown “women”. Now that the truth has been established, you are so deluded and arrogant that you cannot admit that you are wrong and that your criticisms against Muhammad (pbuh) simply don’t hold water. But you are Christians, so it explains why you are such idiots! ROFTL!!

 

s

9 thoughts on “Christian Fanatic Cerbie Gets Refuted on Numbers 31:18 – Part III

  1. 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

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Taph referred to a child around the ages of 8-11, and literally it means, child clinging to his mother.”

      Wow, there it is plain words! And this is from a Christian source! So the “taph” in Numbers 31:18 is indeed referring to young girls as young as 8 years old! So what excuse do you have now, Cerbie?

      Like

      1. Shaad

        lol cool name, can’t wait so see it…hope they notice you and come on your blog one day, would be hilarious to discuss with those idiots…haha 😄

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Paulus

    Britney

    Seems over at BT your muhammadan brethren are busily fighting with each other over killing apostates. Hmm, especially enlightening considering what is happening with PW. And they even refute you over your alleged misuse of the *compulsion* verse

    “The killing of the apostate is an agreed upon issue. It is based on practical tradition transmitted through the Sahaba to the jurists. It is not based on singular ahadith. The Qur’an also gives no other option but death to the apostate. The verse about compulsion is misunderstood”

    Oops, you’ve been refuted again!!😂😂😂

    Like

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