A passage that seems unconscionable.

[Giaour]

God said "take revenge", He didnt say anything specific to do.

It was moses who decided HOW to take that revenge.

[firehill]

This stems from mysoginistic (sp?) culture who had a primitive view of sexuality. How do you think they found out who was or wasn't a virgin?

How?

God was after all working with His people who held primitive views...

[kat8585]

There are some passages in the Old Testament that have always bothered me in terms conscience. However, there is one passage that specifically always really bothered me. That would be Numbers 31, verses 1

[CSLewis]

This stems from mysoginistic (sp?) culture who had a primitive view of sexuality. How do you think they found out who was or wasn't a virgin?

They knew---they were children. Why do you call God mysogynistic?

I never said that God was. I said the culture was.

[forrestkc]

Well, I will tell you guys how I take the passage, and you guys can tell me what you think of this perspective. Most theologians, and almost all Jews, believe that the Pentateuch was handed down through the generations mostly orally until approximately 500 BC when it was actually recorded by Hebrew scribes.

If that were the case, then the passage would be more of a historical tradition than a literal dictation and thus would more reflect the moral beliefs of early Hebrews, than the moral beliefs of God.

[firehill]

Who said they were raped? Those girls could easily have been taken as servants or when of age, wives. The point was that they had not known men, and therefor were not carrying any child of midianite blood.

Well it says, depending on the translation: "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

When taken in historical context, one would take that to mean, you can have the little virgin girls as spoils of war. So the logical conclusion is that they would marry them as soon as they could, and then sleep with them against their will.

It just seems like a passage that requires a lot of rationalization to be palatable to the conscionable individual.

Measured against arranged marriages, what would've been the difference?

[CSLewis]

Who said they were raped? Those girls could easily have been taken as servants or when of age, wives. The point was that they had not known men, and therefor were not carrying any child of midianite blood.

Well it says, depending on the translation: "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

When taken in historical context, one would take that to mean, you can have the little virgin girls as spoils of war. So the logical conclusion is that they would marry them as soon as they could, and then sleep with them against their will.

It just seems like a passage that requires a lot of rationalization to be palatable to the conscionable individual.

Measured against arranged marriages, what would've been the difference?

again evidence of a mysoginistic culture. The girl is taken against her will after seeing her parents brutally murdered and forced into slavery until childbearing age at which she will have no voice and be a baby making machine for the rest of hewr pathetic existence. how is this better than rape?

[firehill]

Well, I will tell you guys how I take the passage, and you guys can tell me what you think of this perspective. Most theologians, and almost all Jews, believe that the Pentateuch was handed down through the generations mostly orally until approximately 500 BC when it was actually recorded by Hebrew scribes.

If that were the case, then the passage would be more of a historical tradition than a literal dictation and thus would more reflect the moral beliefs of early Hebrews, than the moral beliefs of God.

I don't believe or think that the passage reflects God's perfect moral laws. He was after all, working and dealing with those who were primitive...

[firehill]

Who said they were raped? Those girls could easily have been taken as servants or when of age, wives. The point was that they had not known men, and therefor were not carrying any child of midianite blood.

Well it says, depending on the translation: "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

When taken in historical context, one would take that to mean, you can have the little virgin girls as spoils of war. So the logical conclusion is that they would marry them as soon as they could, and then sleep with them against their will.

It just seems like a passage that requires a lot of rationalization to be palatable to the conscionable individual.

Measured against arranged marriages, what would've been the difference?

again evidence of a mysoginistic culture. The girl is taken against her will after seeing her parents brutally murdered and forced into slavery until childbearing age at which she will have no voice and be a baby making machine for the rest of hewr pathetic existence. how is this better than rape?

It's NOT.

[kittyjo]

Matthew Henry Concise Commentary

on the Whole Bible

Link

Verses 13-18 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. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives. In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ.