The Bible God's Instruction for Handling Post-War Hotties

[POI]

Deuteronomy 21 instructs:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.

For debate:

(FYI, all responses from 1213 will be ignored by myself)

1) Christians, in this passage, please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?
2) Christians, what captive(s), in their right mind, would ever desire to be "entered" by the captor(s) responsible for exterminating her family?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #30]

LOL! You got so flustered, that you double-posted. Nothing new from you. Just more of the same, in handwaving and baseless assertions, (with absolutely no substance to back any of it up), in place of actual debate. When you've got nutt'n, then I guess to duck-and-run is the only move you've got, yet again. Sayonara!

[RBD]

Deu 21:10
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

And so we see two things:
1. The woman is found among the captives. Not that she is taken away captive. The consent is not to remain among her fellow captives and own native people.

2. Consenting to depart, she brought home freely. And so, it's she that shaves her own head, she pairs her own nails, she puts off her own native raiment, she remains in her own house. She bewails her own parents. She receives her own new husband.

Nothing was done to her, that she did not do for herself, after being made captive of war. Her consent to depart and be married to a stranger is freely done, doing all things here from departing her captivity, unto the marriage bed of her own new house and husband. She could have stayed captive with her own people, and kept wearing her clothes of captivity among them.

So, there is only one question for her former people: Do they approve or disapprove her consent to depart with the strange victor, and not remain captive among them...

The problem with blind fault-finding, is that the words written are not found fault with, but rather the words falsely written into the record, that are then found fault with.

Blind fault-finders find fault with themselves, for writing their own fault into the record. As they should be found fault with by honest objective people...But, in any case, it's still interesting to see the blind fault finding in action, even if so obviously committed.

[POI]

I guess you do not understand what the term "adios" actually means? Well, that makes sense, since you are also choosing a wacked translator for the Bible passages as well.

Deu 21:10
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

The King James Version isn't going to save you here RBD. The KJV translation of Deuteronomy 21:10-14 uses terminology that obscures the coercive nature of the actions. The NRSV is the version used in the OP and more-so directly reflects direct translation. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is often considered an excellent, if not the best, translation for Deuteronomy 21:10-14 due to its commitment to accurate, literal translation that balances historical context with modern scholarship, particularly regarding the handling of sensitive issues like war captives and marital laws.

Why? The NRSV is known for being a "mediated" translation that acts as a bridge between word-for-word accuracy and thought-for-thought clarity. In a legal text, like Deuteronomy 21, the NRSV accurately renders the Hebrew terms that distinguish the captive woman as a "wife" (using the phrase "take her as a wife") rather than merely a slave or concubine, which is crucial to the passage's intent of elevating the status of the captured woman.

Accurate Treatment of Hebrew Terminology: The passage contains a complex Hebrew term (‘innitah) in verse 14, which refers to the humiliation or humbling of the woman. The NRSV's dedication to using the best available manuscripts ensures that the translation reflects the gravity of this word—often translated as "humiliated" or "humbled"—emphasizing that the woman is not to be treated as property or merchandise, even if the marriage is terminated.

Avoidance of Over-Modernization: Unlike some translations that might paraphrase this passage to be more palatable, the NRSV maintains the uncomfortable historical reality of the text while ensuring the regulations (shaving head, cutting nails, mourning period) are clearly understood, providing a sober, literal interpretation.

Scholarly Consensus and Integrity: The NRSV was produced by a broad, ecumenical committee of scholars, reducing denominational bias, which is important for passages that have been historically misinterpreted.

The NRSV's translation of this passage specifically highlights the legal protections intended for the captured woman (such as being required to treat her as a wife and allowing her to go free rather than being sold) over the rights of the captor, making it a reliable choice for careful study of the text,

And so we see

What we actually see is what the OP translation passage actually conveys, and the sighted KJV is instead a hot garbage translation, which is more-so intended to manipulate the text, as needed, by later apologists.

Maybe you can actually address the OP questions now. But first, here is a refresher to the actual passage, as correctly translated:

Deuteronomy 21 instructs:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.

For debate:

1) Christians, in this passage, please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?
2) Christians, what captive(s), in their right mind, would ever desire to be "entered" by the captor(s) responsible for exterminating her family?

[RBD]

Deu 21:10
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

Deuteronomy 21 instructs:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.

And so, once again, the woman is captive among her nativity. She is not taken as captive to be married, but consents to depart from her nativity. And so, she does all those things necessary by law to marry the victor, and receive him as husband in her new house.

For debate:

1) Christians, in this passage, please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?
2) Christians, what captive(s), in their right mind, would ever desire to be "entered" by the captor(s) responsible for exterminating her family?

For debate:

1) Did her former nativity remaining behind approve or disapprove her consent to depart and wed one of the victors in her new home.

Adios meant, unless you had something new, the argument is over. A meaningless diatribe about different translations, that makes no difference in reading, appeared to be new.

Unlike some people, that just like to hear themselves talk, and think repeating themselves ad nauseum proves anything, next time there will need to be something new, and not in appearance only. Otherwise, adios y adios.

Mat 6:7
But when ye debate, use not vain repetitions, as the childish do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

[POI]

A meaningless diatribe about different translations, that makes no difference in reading, appeared to be new.

It makes all the difference in the world RBD. She is not given a choice in the matter. Her permission is neither necessary nor required. Why? Because the text clearly states what shall happen and I'll explain more below. But in a nutshell, a correctly translated version of the text demonstrates these findings clearly.

1) Without her expressed consent "to be entered" <anywhere in this passage>, and merely reading that he is given permission to "enter" the identified captive female, what would be the logical term to define such as action? In other words, what 4-letter-word starts with the letter (r) and ends with the letter (e)?

2) What captive would want to marry their captor? Sure, she may say 'yes' at the marriage alter, out of fear or knowledge of her captors law(s), but it states that she shall. And in this context, all instances of the word 'shall' means 'will'. Which means, there is no choice in the matter.

Mat 6:7 But when ye debate, use not vain repetitions, as the childish do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Repeating these concepts only demonstrates my continued tolerance and/or patience in allowing you to eventually re-consider. But instead, you continue to avoid the obvious -- for which I continue to issue even more chances for you to redeem yourself, verses continuing to express intellectual dishonesty -- as if she actually has any choice(s) in the matter(s) above.

Ex. 20:16 16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

[RBD]

A meaningless diatribe about different translations, that makes no difference in reading, appeared to be new.

It makes all the difference in the world RBD. She is not given a choice in the matter.

The translation is no different. A woman is found captive, and is not taken away captive.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #36]

Deu 21:14
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

We also see, that she is a freely married woman, who is let go whereever she will, and is not sold into bondage nor prostitution.

She was not taken away captive, held as captive, and then set free, if let go from the marriage.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #36]

Your attempted 'point' is irrelevant as I have still clearly demonstrated that the female's consent to "be entered" is neither necessary nor required, regardless of whether she is still deemed a 'captive' verses a 'wife.' She is still property of the captor either way. Which means, he calls the shots, not her. Changing the title means virtually nothing, in regard to her consent in anything.

Unless you can now tell me where her consent "to be entered" is either necessary or required?

I have slightly augmented the 2nd question, based upon your attempted apologetic:

1) Please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?
2) What woman, in their right mind, would ever desire to be "entered" by the captor(s) responsible for exterminating her family?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #36]

Deu 21:14
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

We also see, that she is a freely married woman, who is let go whereever she will, and is not sold into bondage nor prostitution.

She was not taken away captive, held as captive, and then set free, if let go from the marriage.

It's not her decision to make, it's his and his alone.

(Deuteronomy 21:14) But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.

Please re-read the parts in bold. It's his decision to 'enter' her. "Letting her" means he is the designated shot-caller. If he is not pleased, he can chuck her. Where does the passage(s) consider HER wishes? Guess what, it doesn't, because her wishes are not considered,

And not being 'satisfied with her' is not clarified. Maybe she is not kinky enough? Maybe he got bored after a few times, or other? You see, the decision is all his, and he can just chuck her if not 'satisfied'.

[POI]

For any Christians wanting to defend in this topic, I will present a quick thought experiment...

A couple attends a dinner party. Another couple asks the wife at the party, 'how did you two meet?" The wife answers, "well, it's quite a beautiful little love story. My entire family was slaughtered right in front of me, and one of the warriors spotted me, thought I was hot, and spared me. A month later, after all the sobbing and what-not, the warrior 'married and entered' me. I sure hope he remains satisfied with me so he does not release me into this cruel world where no other man will likely want me? And since I am a woman, I likely cannot earn my own keep."

Okay, back to the absurdity.....