Does Numbers 31 mention sex slavery?

"The Muslim comment you've presented makes several assertions regarding Numbers 31 and its interpretation, particularly concerning the fate of young girls and its alleged connection to Jesus. Here’s why these assertions are incorrect or misleading:

Misinterpretation of Numbers 31: Numbers 31 primarily describes the military campaign of the Israelites against the Midianites, where they are commanded to kill the adult men and take the women and children captive. It does mention sparing virgin females, but this is within the context of capturing them as part of spoils of war, not for sexual exploitation.

Misuse of Talmudic Text: The comment references the Talmud (Kiddushin 78a) to suggest that Jesus (according to the Trinitarian concept) orders girls to be kept alive as bondwomen for sexual or matrimonial purposes. However, this interpretation misrepresents the Talmudic discussion, which deals with legal interpretations of Jewish law regarding proselytes and priesthood eligibility, not sexual exploitation.

Distorted Interpretation of Scholarly Sources: The citation from Shaye J. D. Cohen’s book "The Beginnings of Jewishness" is taken out of context and misapplied. The book does not support the assertion that Numbers 31 advocates or describes sexual relations with children. It discusses ancient Jewish legal texts and boundaries of Jewish identity, not the sexual implications of Biblical passages.

Ethical and Scholarly Standards: Interpreting ancient texts must be done carefully within their historical and cultural contexts. Numbers 31 reflects ancient practices of war and societal norms that are drastically different from modern ethical standards. Any interpretation suggesting sexual exploitation of children from this passage is not supported by scholarly consensus or ethical standards.

Christian Theological Misrepresentation: The comment also implies a theological assertion about Jesus’ actions, which is not supported by Christian theology or Biblical teachings. Jesus’ teachings and actions, as understood by mainstream Christian beliefs, emphasize compassion, justice, and the protection of the vulnerable, including children.

In conclusion, the assertion that Numbers 31 supports or condones sexual relations with children is not supported by the text itself, scholarly interpretations, or ethical standards. Misinterpretations and misrepresentations of ancient texts, including the Bible and the Talmud, can lead to erroneous conclusions that distort their original meanings and contexts."

What now?

It would be interesting to see you try this one again

"that con failed to tackle head on."
Are you sure? And, that's sounds like wishful thinking. Also, pro's sources are the best exmple of gish gallop. Plus, you're still adding something into the text.

What makes you think that people who side with me are wrong?

pro's source is either the best gish gallop I've ever seen, or people who side with con are wrong.

The Christian cited evidence for his claims. While, Muslims cherry-picked and poison the well. And, killing of children?

wait you used a youtube video from the Christines and expact me to not do the same from Muslims ? and stop defending killing of childern

Plus, have you cited those Jewish scholars because they agree with you?

You mean cherry-picking Jewish scholars? I was the one who brorught multiple evidence, not you. And, you're saying Michael Heiser isn't good? For Deut 21, dishonor =/= rape.
Those children will grow, and will see their tribe's past. Do you understand what I'm saying? Doesn't make it eaiser? Plus, aren't the Midianites mentioned in Jugdes 6?

And, citing a Muslim site? I can do that as well. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

I should note that Ibn_HAM (Master.NO) will repeat the same comment about Numbers 31 over and over again.

If you see the "Publish argument" button, click on it. And, you can lay out your arguments.

i dont know where to begin yes i am master no

I thought of letting a Muslim by the name of "Master.NO" in, since he thinks Jesus somehow mentioned in there. But, I think he won't come in.

I figured

I will address that in the debate.

Biblical interpretation isn't really my cup of tea. But reading the passage, it seems to imply that the girls will be sex slaves since they have to have never slept with a man. But it's vague enought that they could just be virgin sacrifices or maidservants for all we know. I'm interested to see how you debate this if someone accepts

Then, provide evidence.

yeah, im pretty sure it does

Sounds fun, huh?

Sorry.

7 rules? LOL

I know this topic quite well. So, I will most luckly will win this one.

even considering con's debate record, I can't see pro winning this.