The bible describes a female ready and willing for love, not the child bride of Mohammed

The Bride Confesses Her Love

(Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Peter 3:1-7)

Song of Solomon 1 The song of songs, which is Solomon’s.

2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.

3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.

The Friends

4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

Exekiel 16 v 7-8

I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The bible describes a female ready and willing for love, not the child bride of Mohammed

  1. θ says:

    The phrase in Exekiel 16:7 “thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned” just means the fashion of girl’s necklaces over her chest.

    Ezek 16:7 talks about the age of “Na’ar” (prepubescence) of a little girl that Ezek 16:22 references again. It is the age that spans from the juvenile age (still being naked and bare) to the time of birthing.
    In Hebrew, Na’ar means a little child that doesn’t know yet or experience what sexuality is.
    Na’ar: Properly passive participle from H5288 as denominative; (only in plural collectively or emphatically) youth, the state (juvenility) or the persons (young people):—childhood, youth.
    Ezek 16:7
    I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.
    Ezek 16:22
    And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth [Na’ar], when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.

    Hence, according to Ezek 16:22, Ezek 16:7 is about Na’ar (little girl) whose natural ignorance of woman’s nakedness and sexual shame is still common.

    The same case (Ruth 3:4-9) happens to a little girl Ruth who doesn’t yet understand the “sexual appeal” her mother-n-law orders her to kindle for turning on Boaz, that is by secretly sneaking and crawling upon the “uncovered feet” of Boaz. If Ruth were a mature female, she should have been ashamed by her “soft seduction” of a sleeping man at night.
    Afterward, just as Ezek 16:7-8, a man (such as Boaz) could lay his skirt upon her, meaning to proceed further to make a sexual activity with her.

  2. madmanna says:

    In Ezekiel there are stages of development clearly being described so your contorted fabrication is a clear distortion of the text.

  3. madmanna says:

    Ruth is not a little girl.

  4. θ says:

    “madmanna says: In Ezekiel there are stages of development clearly being described so your contorted fabrication is a clear distortion of the text.”

    According to Ezek 16:22, Ezek 16:7 is at the stage of Na’ar (little girl) with her natural ignorance of woman’s nakedness and sexual shame.
    Ezek 16:22
    And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth [Na’ar], when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.

    Ezekiel mentions the stage of her “birth” and her abandonment, then the stage of her “weaning” in the early development (when thou wast in thy blood, live), then the stage of being a “toddler” fascinated by playing with toys and ornaments such as necklaces (thou art come to excellent ornaments), then the stage of growing as a “little girl” lacking a basic knowledge of the intimacy (thou wast naked and bare), then the stage of knowing eroticism – when she learns importance of getting covered (covered thy nakedness) – that is a lesson of knowing the shame and intimacy. The set of stages is called “Na’ar”, meaning the time of prepubescence.
    Eventually the stage of being a wife, then the stage of giving the birth, and then her affairs.

    Ezek 16
    7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness:

    “Ruth is not a little girl.”

    There’s no evidence that Ruth is not a little girl, whereas there is a fact that she is too young.
    With her lacks of perception about a basic intimacy and sensual shame, a teen Ruth doesn’t yet understand the meaning and consequence of what she does toward an old man like Boaz. She is too immature or too ignorant to know that to secretly sneak in and crawl upon the “uncovered feet” of the lonely man at the night is clearly a seduction and gesturing a sex appeal.

  5. madmanna says:

    Ruth had already been married 10 years to Naomi’s son and she did not do anything indecent. She claimed the right of levirate marriage with Boaz.

    You guys are obsessed with pre-pubescent female toddlers like your hero.. Go get a therapy.

  6. θ says:

    Prophet Muhammad brought Aisha to his house only after her puberty. Moslems just point that the Jews and Christians do not have any restriction whatsoever of the marriage of the prepubescent females, especially the slaves ones.

    Concerning Levirate marriage, the Christian apologists just shamelessly messed the Moses’ law so badly for justifying their agenda of inserting Jesus into Judah’s line.
    Moses’ Levirate law doesn’t involve a non brother-in-law. Jews who live after the time of Moses (Ruth and Naomi lived at the time of Ehud the Judge after the time of Joshua) know that the Levirate marriage doesn’t involve a distant relative of the father-in-law.
    A seduction arranged by Naomi to be conducted by her daughter-in-law Ruth toward Boaz has nothing to do with the Levirate law since Boaz is actually a distant relative of the family of Naomi’s late husband herself, but not a brother of Ruth’s husband.
    In other words, Boaz is a distant relative (but not even brother) of the father-in-law of Ruth. Such a Levirate marriage might have taken place if it is Naomi who married Boaz.

    //www.torahclass.com/old-testament-studies/51-old-testament-studies-ruth/706-lesson7-ruth-3-and-4
    However the divine ordinance on this matter as given to Moses on Mt. Sinai is very limited in scope and it covers only brothers-in-law bearing this duty of Levirate Marriage to their sisters-in-law. If there is no brother-in-law, or if the brother-in-law refuses to do his duty, there is no other solution available to the widow. We saw an example of this very thing with Judah’s sons who were killed by God for refusing to do their Levirate duty in this manner.
    So how does the law of Levirate Marriage apply to Ruth and Boaz? Answer: despite most Christian commentaries speaking to the contrary, it doesn’t.
    Ruth’s deceased husband had no surviving brothers.
    That should have been the end of the Levirate Marriage solution for Ruth and Na’omi but somewhere along the line (after Mt. Sinai) Hebrew society saw the need for a better way to deal with these unfortunate women and families (when there was no brother-in-law to marry the widow) so they invented another way. They added the duty of marrying a childless widow to the already existing list of various duties of the family go’el.
    Thus in the end what Ruth has asked Boaz to do is the result of Hebrew custom and tradition, not the laws of the Torah per se.
    This may all sound complex and confusing and technical, or like I’m slicing the onion awfully thin, but here’s another way to think of it: nowhere in the Bible is the term “go’el” ever applied to the brother-in-law involved in a Levirate Marriage. A brother-in-law was NOT labeled as a go’el; go’el was an entirely separate institution totally apart from Levirate Marriage. Therefore here in Ruth we see Ruth base her appeal to Boaz to marry her NOT on the God-ordained duty of a brother-in-law for a Levirate Marriage

  7. madmanna says:

    “Ruth’s deceased husband had no surviving brothers.”

    No proof of this.

  8. θ says:

    “madmanna says: “Ruth’s deceased husband had no surviving brothers.”No proof of this.”

    Have not you read Ruth 1:2-5, there are only two sons of Naomi: Mahlon and Chilion.
    Ruth 1
    2 And the name of the man [was] Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.5 And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.

    Secondly, At least the Christian apologists don’t deny that a physical approach that Ruth does toward Boaz in the cold evening is not motivated by a reason of Moses’ Levirate marriage, but truly an indecent seduction of the relative of her father-in-law in the obvious way.

    Thirdly, it is important to note that since Ruth had lived 10 years with her late husband Mahlon, she must be a 4 years old Child Bride of Mahlon.
    Ruth 1:4
    And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaz
    Boaz was eighty and Ruth forty years old (idem to iii. 10), but their marriage did not remain childless, though Boaz died the day after his wedding (Midrash Zutta, ed. Buber, 55,).[9]

  9. θ says:

    *correction
    Thirdly, it is important to note that since Ruth had lived 10 years with her late husband Mahlon, and then she marry Boaz at time when she “looked like” a girl of fourteen, it means she must be like a 4 years old Child Bride when marrying Mahlon.
    Ruth 1:4
    And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

    //www.betemunah.org/ruth.html
    R. Jannai said: She was forty years of age and yet you call her daughter? The answer is that she looked like a girl of fourteen.

  10. madmanna says:

    “//www.betemunah.org/ruth.html
    R. Jannai said: She was forty years of age and yet you call her daughter? The answer is that she looked like a girl of fourteen.”

    Legendary jewish sources. Not evidence.

    “but truly an indecent seduction of the relative of her father-in-law in the obvious way.”

    Not indecent because they were both adults who had no obligation to any marrying off authority, such as their parents.

    At this point they both knew that they were attracted to each other.

    It seems you are offended because in Islam only arranged marriages, outside the control of those being married, are ethical.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s