What about the Druze?

@Rajk999 said
A prisoner of war is not a kidnap victim.

Deu 21:10-14 never uses the phrase "prisoner of war" so that is irrelevant.

I'm not your enemy so I guess I have to change the scenario to one of your enemies capturing your daughter. Apparently you'll recognize a terrorist's marriage to your daughter as long as he shaves her head and keeps her in his basement for a month first.

@AThousandYoung said
I quoted the Bible on this page and you responded to it. Remember this?

The fact that you quote Matt

I may be blind but you have the memory of a goldfish.

This, is what you wrote. Its a reference, not a quote

Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17-19

This is a proper quote:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:17-19 KJV)

See the difference. It countains the whole passage quoted and the version.

Jesus did not come to destroy the law or the prophets. you left out part of that verse, with the prophets. Jesus is the fulfilment of the law AND the prophets. Jesus's point here is that all the prophecies will be fulfulled.

@Rajk999 said
A prisoner of war is not a kidnap victim.

By the way you shouldn't be relying on the King James Bible for your quotes. It is a very poor translation through multiple languages of what God actually said, and "creatively edited" in order to match King James' prejudices.

@Rajk999 said
This, is what you wrote. Its a reference, not a quote

Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17-19

This is a proper quote:

[i]Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from ...[text shortened]... lment of the law AND the prophets. Jesus's point here is that all the prophecies will be fulfulled.

Good point. You are correct (about the quotes, not your interpretation of them).

@AThousandYoung said
Deu 21:10-14 never uses the phrase "prisoner of war" so that is irrelevant.

I'm not your enemy so I guess I have to change the scenario to one of your enemies capturing your daughter. Apparently you'll recognize a terrorist's marriage to your daughter as long as he shaves her head and keeps her in his basement for a month first.

What is this basement talk about. Never was there any reference to basement. The wording is that to keep the woman and let her greive then marry her.

All I did was use this to contrast the behaviour of Islam at war.

@Rajk999 said
This, is what you wrote. Its a reference, not a quote

Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17-19

This is a proper quote:

[i]Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from ...[text shortened]... lment of the law AND the prophets. Jesus's point here is that all the prophecies will be fulfulled.

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

Your comments that the law has been changed is not consistent with this statement by Jesus. Unless you think all has been fulfilled...which you don't because you still think Israel is going to fulfill something.

@AThousandYoung said
By the way you shouldn't be relying on the King James Bible for your quotes. It is a very poor translation through multiple languages of what God actually said, and "creatively edited" in order to match King James' prejudices.

I have several versions at my disposal. I use the KJV because I can remember the wording so doing searches by specific words is more accurate. Thanks for the tip. I know of the failings of the KJV

@Rajk999 said
What is this basement talk about. Never was there any reference to basement. The wording is that to keep the woman and let her greive then marry her.

All I did was use this to contrast the behaviour of Islam at war.

The wording is

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 it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will

Your enemy has to bring her to his house and keep her there against her will for a month. Sounds like the basement to me. I suppose you could chain her to the bed instead. She only gets to leave once he loses his "delight in her".

@Rajk999 said
I have several versions at my disposal. I use the KJV because I can remember the wording so doing searches by specific words is more accurate. Thanks for the tip. I know of the failings of the KJV

Your responses have been measured and you have shown some of my comments to be false. I'll have to remember to take you a little bit more seriously than I have been.

@Rajk999 said
A prisoner of war is not a kidnap victim.

Civilians are not and cannot be "prisoners of war" unless they are government officials of some sort.

@Rajk999 said
I do not believe any one should be doing that now in these times. All I did was to quote the bible [apparently ATY is blind], where God said how to treat captured women. Never said to do it now.

Islam is doing worse than that now in these times.

Actually a sect of people claiming to be adherents of Islam are doing the same thing now as the Israelites did then.

Since I believe in the Natural Law, I do not think it was OK 4000 years ago but a terrible crime now. It was always and will always be morally horrendous.

@no1marauder said
Civilians are not and cannot be "prisoners of war" unless they are government officials of some sort.

I think its called 'Presentism'. Its not a compliment. It is when people, like you in this case, insist over and over, despite being warned of that fallacy, apply modern standards to historical events, in this case over 4000 years ago.

I wont bother responding.

@no1marauder said
Actually a sect of people claiming to be adherents of Islam are doing the same thing now as the Israelites did then.

Since I believe in the Natural Law, I do not think it was OK 4000 years ago but a terrible crime now. It was always and will always be morally horrendous.

I completely agree that it is morally horrendous. But I am alive now, and I can speak of now. I know of no life in those times so I cannot comment, except to repeat what the Bible said or what was written historically about these events.

@AThousandYoung said
Your responses have been measured and you have shown some of my comments to be false. I'll have to remember to take you a little bit more seriously than I have been.

Cool .. I will do the same for you.

@Rajk999 said
I think its called 'Presentism'. Its not a compliment. It is when people, like you in this case, insist over and over, despite being warned of that fallacy, apply modern standards to historical events, in this case over 4000 years ago.

I wont bother responding.

BS. Seizing civilians under pretext of war didn't suddenly become "wrong" some recent day; it was always a grevious violation of the Natural Law.

Your omniscient God should have known that.