I should add that this is precisely the kind of low-level polemics that James White has criticized Christians for. They hypocritically attack Islam for perceived “immoralities” when their own Bible contains the same on a much grander and much worse scale.
Are you trying to say that 1 Kings 11:3 says that the multiple wives was wrong, but having 300 concubines is ok?
I disagree. They are both negatives. So, it is not “lying”, but a matter of interpretation of the spirit of the passage. The “foreign women” of verse 1 includes both wives and concubines. The passage treats both as a negative thing.
11 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. 4 For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after [d]Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. 6 Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not follow the Lord fully, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is [e]east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. 8 Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9 Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord had commanded.
1 Kings 11:1-10
It seems to me that concubines in verse 3 are included in the spirit of the entire passage, especially since verse 1 indicates the general term of Solomon loving many foreign women – it includes both those that became official wives and also concubines – so many caused his heart to turn away from the Lord.
So, it is not “lying”, rather it is a matter of interpretation of the passage and the spirit of the whole passage. Monogamy was the ideal – Genesis 1-2 – God created Adam and Eve (one man and one woman), and Genesis 2:24 – “the two will become one flesh”. Jesus quoted this in Matthew 19:3-6 – “the two will become one”. Monogamy was the ideal; polygamy and concubines were allowed, but they were not God’s ideal.
“Monogamy was the ideal – Genesis 1-2 – God created Adam and Eve (one man and one woman), and Genesis 2:24 – “the two will become one flesh”.
no pagan cross worshiper. yhwh was not going to have “lonely adam” become “one” with plants and animals. the story is about finding a suitable partner.
“It seems to me that concubines in verse 3 are included in the spirit of the entire passage, especially since verse 1 indicates the general term of Solomon loving many foreign women – it includes both those that became official wives and also concubines – so many caused his heart to turn away from the Lord.”
in the bible, MANY idol worshipers who are not married to the israelites have turned their (israelites)hearts away.
“Are you trying to say that 1 Kings 11:3 says that the multiple wives was wrong, but having 300 concubines is ok?
I disagree. They are both negatives. So, it is not “lying”, but a matter of interpretation of the spirit of the passage. The “foreign women” of verse 1 includes both wives and concubines. The passage treats both as a negative thing.”
Dummy, you tried to twist the text to say that polygamy or concubinage are wrong, when all it says is that Solomon was led astray by his many foreign wives. If Solomon had only one wife, and she was a foreigner who worshiped idols, couldn’t that have led him astray as well? The condemnation is not in having multiple wives or concubines, but having idolaters in his house who led him astray.
Your “interpretation” deliberately twists the text because you are too proud to admit that your Bible allows concubinage and polygamy, all because of your low-level polemics against Islam.
Does not mean the adultery and deceptions and cover-up, etc. with Bathsheba was ok; rather it was a short way of saying “everything David did in relation to Uriah Hittite – stealing his wife, committing adultery with her, and having him killed in battle and the deceptions, etc. – in the case of all the sins related to Uriah the Hittite – David was wrong.
Even with your broader interpretation which I agree, the passage still means God was okay with David(as) having concubines and multiple wives. Only when he took another man’s wife, he was punished.
The below passages also confirms the same.
2 Samuel 12:7-8
Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
2 Samuel 5:10-13
And he became more and more powerful, because the Lord God Almighty was with him.
Now Hiram king of Tyre sent envoys to David, along with cedar logs and carpenters and stonemasons, and they built a palace for David. Then David knew that the Lord had established him as king over Israel and had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel.
After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.
Moron, you see the word “except” in the verse? You see how you keep lying to save face? Your nose must be bigger than Pinocchio’s!
Of all the things David did in the Bible, he is ONLY condemned for the Uriah episode. There is no mention of his mass killings or taking multiple wives and concubines. So you are wrong again and exposed as a lying scumbag…again.
” Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.) 9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish.
10 When Achish asked, “Where did you go raiding today?” David would say, “Against the Negev of Judah” or “Against the Negev of Jerahmeel” or “Against the Negev of the Kenites.” 11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, “They might inform on us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. 12 Achish trusted David and said to himself, “He has become so obnoxious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant for life.””
Wow! So, men and women are killed after raids so they won’t report on David’s behavior! It’s like a witness getting whacked by the Mafia, lol! And yet the crosstians have a problem with Islam! 🤦♂️
LOL, another braindead moron who doesn’t answer the question but has to deflect. “Mass killings happen in war” you say? So killing men and women just “happens”? Apparently, Christianity has really taken a toll on your mind, lol!
What “mass killings” are you referring to? The Bani Qurayza perhaps?
How many people did David kill in the Bible Iggy? Do you have an estimate?
5 because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
The English word “except” is there – New American Standard Bible translation.
So you are wrong again. Obviously, he means all the sins related to the adultery, deceptions and murder of Uriah the Hittite.
So you are the one whose evil character has been exposed again.
LOL, the dummy still doesn’t get it! I didn’t deny that it is referring to the Uriah episode moron! What I am saying is that the verse ONLY condemns David for the sins he committed in 2 Samuel 11. In other words, David’s mass killings and taking concubines is NOT condemned. Try using your brain, you zombie.
Stop lying against your own book. Have a little dignity, you lying scumbag.
ken and holmes, barry jones has this to say about yhwh’ “justice”
ii) And I regard eternal retributive justice as a necessary background for a moral universe. That’s not peripheral.
Then you apparently don’t understand your own god’s sense of justice. God commanded the death penalty for crimes considered the most heinous, such as adultery and murder, yet in 2nd Samuel 12:13, after David has committed those two sins, the prophet Nathan says God has “taken away” David’s sins therefore the otherwise mandatory penalty of death will not be required. Gee, god can just “take away” sin in such unqualified manner? Yet if you try to save this by saying David’s baby was killed by God (v. 15, 18), then we are looking at God approving of child sacrifice for sin. If the baby wasn’t killed to “atone” for David’s sin, then there is nothing left in the context to provide that atonement. If you assume Yom Kippur would fix that, you are wrong, intentional sins could not be atoned for by the yearly sacrifice, see Numbers 15:28-31. Exactly what sense does it make to say David’s sins of adultery and premeditated murder were “accidental” or “unintentional”? None. So there you go, nothing in the religious context or literary context indicates that David’s capital offenses were “atoned” for in any way, yet God was somehow still able to wave his magic wand and get rid of those sins regardless.
And since getting rid of those sins did not require eternal suffering, it is not true that “god requires eternal suffering” for sin. That’s just NT horseshit, or, the inevitable evolution of Judaic theology.
You are a liar because you criticized Islam for having concubines then ignore ALL the concubines in your text.
Moving on, nobody cares what you think, where does it say it in the text? Concubines are NOT wives nor is there anything wrong with them this is just your modern-day Roman pagan culture talking. You stated concubines were “evil” and this does not exist in the passage or anywhere in the Bible period point-blank which is a lie. (But I don’t think anyone here should be surprised because the Trinity doesn’t either)
The ” foreign women” part of the passage is just talking bout them being pagans, that’s it. This is why verse 3 mentions it. Again nothing about concubines because verse 3 says “and his WIVES turned his heart away.” I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to understand wives are not concubines.
Finally, in regards to your poor “one flesh” argument. First off it’s unknown if God, Adam or the Narrator are talking in the passage. Next this sure is a LOT of assumption on your part, anytime a marriage is made between a couple the two become one SYMBOLICALY (through a contract, family and relationship) This is CLEARLY not a literal statement nor does this outlaw it. Romans only took one wife (while keeping a ton of concubines) and this was adopted by European Christianity. And even then this passage is again referring to MARRIAGE, not a CONCUBINE.
Loong story short, you have nothing to criticize Islam for in regards to, and we can go ahead and add this to the list of nukes.
If nothing wrong with concubines and is not evil, any Muslims with daughters, mothers, cousins and sisters that I can have? I’ll even convert to Islam if that makes the transaction easier. Thanks
Irrelevant to the discussion retard. The argument preseted by him is Islam is a false religion for allowing concubines while ignoring that his text states multiple prophets and people had concubines. I know it’s difficult but try to keep up with the rest of the class.
@stewjo It’s relevant since you claim nothing wrong with it and it’s not evil. I don’t see the issue with you giving me a female member of your family as my concubines. I guess I can have more than one of your family member as my concubines? I’ll take the shahada if I need, I’ll pay for them if required. Give them a place to live, feed them and so on. I’ll be good for them.
The reason the first time you did not say yes. Because in reality, you think it will be wrong to give them as concubines. However, you’re convincing yourself it’s good because of Muhammad.
Lol yeah, I’ll bet you want to get a woman in your life, any way you can. 😂 But I’ll you what I once told a Christian…no human woman would touch you even with a 10-ft pole.
Before beginning I have a question does Christiendom just attract retards or does it make you retarded?
As for your poor argument several points:
1. You don’t just give your family member as a concubine whether Muslim or not. Like seriously as I said earlier at least understand the thing in question before commenting. It helps you not look like a dumb@$$ later.
2. Simple question now retard try to not hurt yourself:
“Does the Bible allow concubines”?
As i know you future fuels for Hell will jump around all day I just need a simple yes or no to the question with notthing extra.
3. Regarding your peeing comment it’s just one of the many disgusting things you kuffar do as you laugh about getting piss on your clothes. Whaaaaaat? Yes, it is generally seen as a cleaner thing to sit down:
“Physicists have found that peeing standing up significantly increases the velocity of the stream and potential for backsplash, amounting to less hygienic, more bacteria-filled bathrooms. So if dads are not going to pee sitting down for their prostates, than they can do it for their partners…”There are men that have bad aim and can soak the toilet with splatters of urine,” Brahmbhatt says. “Sitting and urinating on the toilet does increase your odds of making sure the urine is actually going down the drain.”
4. Regarding sucking on the tongue that was a way to give his grandchild who was thirsty some relief in an area that averages over 100 degrees and has little water:
Since we’re discussing closeted homos actual Christian commentators like John Shelby Spong suggests Paul isqueer in the passage where he discusses a messenger from Satan coming and visiting him every night:
“or with these surpassingly great revelations. So to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” (2 Corinthians 12:7)
Even if we ignore that the passage from Acts 16 says:
“Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where he found a disciple named Timothy, the son of a believing Jewish woman and a Greek father. 2The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, so he took him and circumcised him on account of the Jews in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Now if you don’t know how the Jews circumcise they literally put their mouths on the penis and suck the blood out.
So we can conclude Paul put his mouth on Timothy’s (and only God knows how many more men’s) johnson. So what’s gayer squatting while peeing or sucking on another man’s penis? Enjoy. 😊😊😊
On the issue of urinating sitting, it just goes to show how desperate these crosstian pagans are. Chances are that Jesus and his disciples also urinated while sitting down. In the Talmud, it is stated that one should urinate sitting down unless one can assure that there will be no splashing. This would be possible only if one was urinating on top of a cliff or while standing on loose soil.
Berakhot 40a:3 states:
“And Rava bar Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: Urine only completely leaves the body if one urinates seated, as, otherwise, due to concern that drops of urine will drip onto his clothes, he attempts to conclude prematurely. Rav Kahana said: Over loose soil which absorbs the urine, one is not concerned that it will splash on him; therefore, even when standing the urine leaves his body. And if there is no loose soil there is another way to prevent the urine from splashing on his clothes while standing. Stand on an elevated place and urinate down an inclined plane.”
In Tur Orach Chaim 3:1, it states:
“He should not urinate standing, so that the drops not drip on his feet and he appear like a eunuch, resulting in slander about his children, except where he can stand in a high place or will urinate into overturned soil. He should take care concerning the prohibition not to take hold of the member and urinate, except from the crown down to the ground side, even if he is married, and should not make his needs wait.”
So, unless Jesus was always in an elevated place or on soft soil, he would have urinated sitting down.
The original argument that I was making was the hypocrisy of Muhammad to get special revelation to get more than 4 wives, while all other Muslims could only have at the most 4 wives.
The getting of special revelation for him to get special treatment is the problem.
And Aisha’s statement is telling: “it seems Allah is swift to meet your desires”
Him getting special permission from Allah did not pass the smell test with Aisha.
Which shows that this was not revelation from the true God at all, but rather him manipulating and claiming “revelations” from God.
Temple: The original argument that I was making was the hypocrisy of Muhammad to get special revelation to get more than 4 wives, while all other Muslims could only have at the most 4 wives.
Why didn’t he get special revelation for alcohol or not having to wake up for Fajr or not having to perform Tahajjud or not having to fast throughout the year or not having to physically participate in wars, etc.? You are a piece of crap, Ken.
“How is Aisha(ra)’s statement “it seems Allah is swift to meet your desires” different from what God promised to David(as) in 2 Samuel 12:7-8 ?”
I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you
from the hand of Saul; I gave you your master’s
house, and your master’s wives into your bosom,
and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and
if that had been too little, I would have added as
much more
So here is a pretty clear statement, from Yahweh to David, that
Yahweh gave David wives, and the implication is that Yahweh
gave them to David as a sign of his blessing and approval of David.
How does Copan maneuver around this text? Two lame arguments. We’ll look at the second first
He claims that the transference of Saul’s wives was merely the
only explicitly noted portion of the “house” of Saul that God gave
David, such that David became the master of Saul’s “estate” without actually being married to all of Saul’s wives. Noting that Saul’s
wife Ahinoam (1 Sam 14:50) was mother of David’s wife Michal
and that levitical law prohibits the marriage of a mother-in-law
(Lev 18:17), he argues that the wives of Saul that David received
as part of his new position should not be assumed to have become
additional wives for David. So, Copan concludes, this text, despite
appearances, really doesn’t endorse polygamy (115).
But the text says Yahweh gave Saul’s wives (plural) to David.
Not all of them were Michal’s mother. Only one, in fact. This isn’t
hard to reconcile. So either Ahinoam was dead, or God gave all of
Saul’s wives, excepting Ahinoam, to David. Enough said. But his
first argument is the one that really displays Copan’s capacity to
grasp at straws.
Cautioning his readers not to take the terminology of “giving
wives” too literally, he calls attention to the same word in 2 Samuel 12:11, in which God tells David that he would “give” his wives
to his son Absalom. This, argues Copan, is clearly not evidence
that God approves of polygamy, since the giving of David’s wives
over to a traitor is (apparently) hard to imagine (115).
On the contrary, it only reinforces the fact that these texts assume Yahweh gives multiple wives as a blessing. What verse 8
clearly says is that God gave David many wives as a blessing, and
what verse 11 clearly says is that God will take away that blessing
in order to punish David. Yahweh isn’t giving Absalom David’s
wives because he approves of Absalom; he’s giving them away
because he (currently) disapproves of David. To wit: Yahweh gives
and takes away the blessing of many wives. The many wives are
assumed here to be a sign of David’s greatness. “If that had been
too little,” Yahweh says, “I would have added much more!”
Copan concludes his argument on polygamy by stating, rather
ludicrously, that when Proverbs 5:15-18 counsels men to find
pleasure and sexual satisfaction within the confines of monogamous marriage (“Drink . . . fresh water from your own well”), this
is the accepted norm (116). But this is misleading, because verse
20 makes clear what verses 15-18 mean. It’s not arguing for monogamy over polygamy. Verse 20 specifically says not to be intoxicated by an “adulteress.” It’s warning against illicit promiscuity
with another’s wife (think David and Bathsheba), not against polygamy (think David and Michal and Abigail).
As I said the last time you mentioned this his number of wives is not a violation of the Quran and was limited. Majority opinion is this is so we have more witnesses to his family life (and he pretty much did every type of marriage one can do) So if you’re going to be consistent he had more restrictions placed on himself such as prayer (6 times a day) and fasting longer. Was he “manipulating” this to his favor as well? Combine this with the fact that if he wanted to be manipulative he could have just not put the rule to begin with or abrogated it. Also that is NOT was Aisha(ra) was saying as I said earlier. Just repeating the same thing doesn’t then make it true.
Haha, I don’t care if Paul is gay, straight, transgender. Not my problem.
Not because your prophet could not piss properly that makes sitting down better. He pissed on his leg while sitting down lol It’s gay and disgusting.
Sucking on tongues when it’s hot makes it worse, not better. You’re already stupid. You don’t need Muhammad to make it worse for you. Lol
He was also a transgender as well wearing his child bride garment. Is it proven by science to wear your child bride garment is better? It was very hot, the child bride garment kept him fresh?
Don’t ask me a yes or no answer. When you can’t answer if your mother, sister, daughter and cousin will be good concubines. 😉. Second time and still no answer. Be a good Muslim, nothing wrong and evil about it. Just say yes so as I can laugh at you.
Which of your prophet suck for circumcision or getting sucked by another person? Since a lot of them are Jews Lol. And somehow the message of Allah turned into sucking penis. Hahahahahaha the Jews taking the piss at Allah lol. That was funny. At least you make me laugh.
You’re a waste of time. When you give female member of your family as concubines. Come back and say nothing wrong or evil. Your ashamed of the teaching of Muhammad. That why you can’t say your mum would be a great concubine lol. Keep diverting since your following a low iq prophet.
There’s no study showing that men who pee while squatting are more likely to be gay than men who pee standing. Then again, if Shamoun-who didn’t even complete high school-says otherwise, who are we to disagree?
The original argument that I was making was the hypocrisy of Muhammad to get special revelation to get more than 4 wives, while all other Muslims could only have at the most 4 wives.
/////
“special revelation” in a place where you can have unrestricted number ?
“Also, the clear commands of Deuteronomy 17 was for the king to “NOT multiply wives”.”
Now, Copan concedes that the real problem with Solomon’s
marriages (700 hundred wives and 300 concubines) was that
they were, besides being ridiculously excessive, political alliances
that led to the worship of other gods. The problem with Solomon’s polygamy was therefore not polygamy per se, but the infiltration of foreign deities into Israelite religion through Solomon’s many wives.
Copan reads Deut 17:17 without any reference to source criticism whatsoever, as if Deut 17:17 was written in Moses’ day and predicted or forewarned against kings taking an excessive number of wives. Here’s what the text says:
When you have come into the land that the Lord
your God is giving you, and have taken possession
of it and settled in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king
over me, like all the nations that are around me’,
you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord
your God will choose. One of your own community
you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your
own community. Even so, he must not acquire
many horses for himself, or return the people to
Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the
Lord has said to you, ‘You must never return that
way again.’ And he must not acquire many wives
for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also
silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself. (Deut 17:14-17)
Now, the broad scholarly consensus is that most of Deuteronomy was written during the time of King Josiah, in order to legitimate his novel religious and political reforms. This text is clearly anachronistic in the Mosaic period. One tradition in 1 Samuel says
that God didn’t want a king over Israel, but that Israel insisted
upon having a king. But this Deuteronomistic text already grants
Israel permission to have a king, well over a hundred years before
they even insist on having one. And this particular passage was
clearly written in direct response to Solomon’s sins. It was written after the fact, by Josiah’s people, as an indictment of royal excesses which led to idolatry.
Referring to the things prohibited to the king here in Deuteornomy 17, Copan naïvely comments that, indeed, Solomon committed all of these acts (111). It apparently doesn’t occur to him that the list of prohibitions was written precisely with Solomon’s (already historical) excesses in mind. Solomon acquired many horses, he acquired silver and gold, and he acquired many wives, including an Egyptian princess, causing his “heart” to “turn away.”
See 1 Kgs 11:1-4, where the language closely matches that of Deuteronomy 17. And remember that the book of Kings was fashioned by the same author(s) who wrote most of Deuteronomy.
What’s taking place here in the Deuteronomistic History is that all
of the events of the past are reinterpreted according to the ideology underwriting the Josianic reforms, and that ideology is legitimated by the forged Deuteronomy legislation which was said to have been “lost” in the temple walls and conveniently found by
Josiah’s high priest.32
At any rate, Solomon’s marriages really have no bearing on
the polygamy discussion, because it’s clear that the problems
there were outrageous excess, political alliances, and the introduction of foreign cults into Israel.
/////
you were talking about “fabricating revealations” these guys were fabricating “revelations” due to not feeling comfortable with deeds of yhwhs pimps.
I should add that this is precisely the kind of low-level polemics that James White has criticized Christians for. They hypocritically attack Islam for perceived “immoralities” when their own Bible contains the same on a much grander and much worse scale.
well said.
Are you trying to say that 1 Kings 11:3 says that the multiple wives was wrong, but having 300 concubines is ok?
I disagree. They are both negatives. So, it is not “lying”, but a matter of interpretation of the spirit of the passage. The “foreign women” of verse 1 includes both wives and concubines. The passage treats both as a negative thing.
11 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. 4 For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after [d]Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. 6 Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not follow the Lord fully, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is [e]east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. 8 Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9 Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord had commanded.
1 Kings 11:1-10
It seems to me that concubines in verse 3 are included in the spirit of the entire passage, especially since verse 1 indicates the general term of Solomon loving many foreign women – it includes both those that became official wives and also concubines – so many caused his heart to turn away from the Lord.
So, it is not “lying”, rather it is a matter of interpretation of the passage and the spirit of the whole passage. Monogamy was the ideal – Genesis 1-2 – God created Adam and Eve (one man and one woman), and Genesis 2:24 – “the two will become one flesh”. Jesus quoted this in Matthew 19:3-6 – “the two will become one”. Monogamy was the ideal; polygamy and concubines were allowed, but they were not God’s ideal.
Seems to be a negative thing.
So, I did not deliberately lie.
“Monogamy was the ideal – Genesis 1-2 – God created Adam and Eve (one man and one woman), and Genesis 2:24 – “the two will become one flesh”.
no pagan cross worshiper. yhwh was not going to have “lonely adam” become “one” with plants and animals. the story is about finding a suitable partner.
“It seems to me that concubines in verse 3 are included in the spirit of the entire passage, especially since verse 1 indicates the general term of Solomon loving many foreign women – it includes both those that became official wives and also concubines – so many caused his heart to turn away from the Lord.”
in the bible, MANY idol worshipers who are not married to the israelites have turned their (israelites)hearts away.
“Are you trying to say that 1 Kings 11:3 says that the multiple wives was wrong, but having 300 concubines is ok?
I disagree. They are both negatives. So, it is not “lying”, but a matter of interpretation of the spirit of the passage. The “foreign women” of verse 1 includes both wives and concubines. The passage treats both as a negative thing.”
Dummy, you tried to twist the text to say that polygamy or concubinage are wrong, when all it says is that Solomon was led astray by his many foreign wives. If Solomon had only one wife, and she was a foreigner who worshiped idols, couldn’t that have led him astray as well? The condemnation is not in having multiple wives or concubines, but having idolaters in his house who led him astray.
Your “interpretation” deliberately twists the text because you are too proud to admit that your Bible allows concubinage and polygamy, all because of your low-level polemics against Islam.
1 Kings 15:5
“except in the case of Uriah the Hittite”
Does not mean the adultery and deceptions and cover-up, etc. with Bathsheba was ok; rather it was a short way of saying “everything David did in relation to Uriah Hittite – stealing his wife, committing adultery with her, and having him killed in battle and the deceptions, etc. – in the case of all the sins related to Uriah the Hittite – David was wrong.
So you are wrong again.
Even with your broader interpretation which I agree, the passage still means God was okay with David(as) having concubines and multiple wives. Only when he took another man’s wife, he was punished.
The below passages also confirms the same.
2 Samuel 12:7-8
Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
2 Samuel 5:10-13
And he became more and more powerful, because the Lord God Almighty was with him.
Now Hiram king of Tyre sent envoys to David, along with cedar logs and carpenters and stonemasons, and they built a palace for David. Then David knew that the Lord had established him as king over Israel and had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel.
After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.
Moron, you see the word “except” in the verse? You see how you keep lying to save face? Your nose must be bigger than Pinocchio’s!
Of all the things David did in the Bible, he is ONLY condemned for the Uriah episode. There is no mention of his mass killings or taking multiple wives and concubines. So you are wrong again and exposed as a lying scumbag…again.
Mass killings happen in war didn’t you know that? lol
Did you ever condemn your prophet for his mass killings?
It looks like he did his best to outdo David but I still think David beat him hands down.
This is how mass killings just “happen” Iggy?
” Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.) 9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish.
10 When Achish asked, “Where did you go raiding today?” David would say, “Against the Negev of Judah” or “Against the Negev of Jerahmeel” or “Against the Negev of the Kenites.” 11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, “They might inform on us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. 12 Achish trusted David and said to himself, “He has become so obnoxious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant for life.””
Wow! So, men and women are killed after raids so they won’t report on David’s behavior! It’s like a witness getting whacked by the Mafia, lol! And yet the crosstians have a problem with Islam! 🤦♂️
LOL, another braindead moron who doesn’t answer the question but has to deflect. “Mass killings happen in war” you say? So killing men and women just “happens”? Apparently, Christianity has really taken a toll on your mind, lol!
What “mass killings” are you referring to? The Bani Qurayza perhaps?
How many people did David kill in the Bible Iggy? Do you have an estimate?
5 because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
The English word “except” is there – New American Standard Bible translation.
So you are wrong again. Obviously, he means all the sins related to the adultery, deceptions and murder of Uriah the Hittite.
So you are the one whose evil character has been exposed again.
LOL, the dummy still doesn’t get it! I didn’t deny that it is referring to the Uriah episode moron! What I am saying is that the verse ONLY condemns David for the sins he committed in 2 Samuel 11. In other words, David’s mass killings and taking concubines is NOT condemned. Try using your brain, you zombie.
Stop lying against your own book. Have a little dignity, you lying scumbag.
ken and holmes, barry jones has this to say about yhwh’ “justice”
ii) And I regard eternal retributive justice as a necessary background for a moral universe. That’s not peripheral.
Then you apparently don’t understand your own god’s sense of justice. God commanded the death penalty for crimes considered the most heinous, such as adultery and murder, yet in 2nd Samuel 12:13, after David has committed those two sins, the prophet Nathan says God has “taken away” David’s sins therefore the otherwise mandatory penalty of death will not be required. Gee, god can just “take away” sin in such unqualified manner? Yet if you try to save this by saying David’s baby was killed by God (v. 15, 18), then we are looking at God approving of child sacrifice for sin. If the baby wasn’t killed to “atone” for David’s sin, then there is nothing left in the context to provide that atonement. If you assume Yom Kippur would fix that, you are wrong, intentional sins could not be atoned for by the yearly sacrifice, see Numbers 15:28-31. Exactly what sense does it make to say David’s sins of adultery and premeditated murder were “accidental” or “unintentional”? None. So there you go, nothing in the religious context or literary context indicates that David’s capital offenses were “atoned” for in any way, yet God was somehow still able to wave his magic wand and get rid of those sins regardless.
And since getting rid of those sins did not require eternal suffering, it is not true that “god requires eternal suffering” for sin. That’s just NT horseshit, or, the inevitable evolution of Judaic theology.
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/
please bring the light of the “holy spirit” to barry jones.
@ Ken
You are a liar because you criticized Islam for having concubines then ignore ALL the concubines in your text.
Moving on, nobody cares what you think, where does it say it in the text? Concubines are NOT wives nor is there anything wrong with them this is just your modern-day Roman pagan culture talking. You stated concubines were “evil” and this does not exist in the passage or anywhere in the Bible period point-blank which is a lie. (But I don’t think anyone here should be surprised because the Trinity doesn’t either)
The ” foreign women” part of the passage is just talking bout them being pagans, that’s it. This is why verse 3 mentions it. Again nothing about concubines because verse 3 says “and his WIVES turned his heart away.” I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to understand wives are not concubines.
Finally, in regards to your poor “one flesh” argument. First off it’s unknown if God, Adam or the Narrator are talking in the passage. Next this sure is a LOT of assumption on your part, anytime a marriage is made between a couple the two become one SYMBOLICALY (through a contract, family and relationship) This is CLEARLY not a literal statement nor does this outlaw it. Romans only took one wife (while keeping a ton of concubines) and this was adopted by European Christianity. And even then this passage is again referring to MARRIAGE, not a CONCUBINE.
Loong story short, you have nothing to criticize Islam for in regards to, and we can go ahead and add this to the list of nukes.
If nothing wrong with concubines and is not evil, any Muslims with daughters, mothers, cousins and sisters that I can have? I’ll even convert to Islam if that makes the transaction easier. Thanks
Would you be willing to return the favour ?
@ Denver
Irrelevant to the discussion retard. The argument preseted by him is Islam is a false religion for allowing concubines while ignoring that his text states multiple prophets and people had concubines. I know it’s difficult but try to keep up with the rest of the class.
@Tiyaan you forgot to answer the question
@stewjo It’s relevant since you claim nothing wrong with it and it’s not evil. I don’t see the issue with you giving me a female member of your family as my concubines. I guess I can have more than one of your family member as my concubines? I’ll take the shahada if I need, I’ll pay for them if required. Give them a place to live, feed them and so on. I’ll be good for them.
The reason the first time you did not say yes. Because in reality, you think it will be wrong to give them as concubines. However, you’re convincing yourself it’s good because of Muhammad.
Lol yeah, I’ll bet you want to get a woman in your life, any way you can. 😂 But I’ll you what I once told a Christian…no human woman would touch you even with a 10-ft pole.
@ Denver
Before beginning I have a question does Christiendom just attract retards or does it make you retarded?
As for your poor argument several points:
1. You don’t just give your family member as a concubine whether Muslim or not. Like seriously as I said earlier at least understand the thing in question before commenting. It helps you not look like a dumb@$$ later.
2. Simple question now retard try to not hurt yourself:
“Does the Bible allow concubines”?
As i know you future fuels for Hell will jump around all day I just need a simple yes or no to the question with notthing extra.
3. Regarding your peeing comment it’s just one of the many disgusting things you kuffar do as you laugh about getting piss on your clothes. Whaaaaaat? Yes, it is generally seen as a cleaner thing to sit down:
“Physicists have found that peeing standing up significantly increases the velocity of the stream and potential for backsplash, amounting to less hygienic, more bacteria-filled bathrooms. So if dads are not going to pee sitting down for their prostates, than they can do it for their partners…”There are men that have bad aim and can soak the toilet with splatters of urine,” Brahmbhatt says. “Sitting and urinating on the toilet does increase your odds of making sure the urine is actually going down the drain.”
https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/why-you-should-sit-down-to-pee/
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24820279
God you all are disgusting.
4. Regarding sucking on the tongue that was a way to give his grandchild who was thirsty some relief in an area that averages over 100 degrees and has little water:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Saudi_Arabia
5. Paul’s homosexuality and/or homosexual acts
Since we’re discussing closeted homos actual Christian commentators like John Shelby Spong suggests Paul isqueer in the passage where he discusses a messenger from Satan coming and visiting him every night:
“or with these surpassingly great revelations. So to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” (2 Corinthians 12:7)
https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/12-7.htm
Even if we ignore that the passage from Acts 16 says:
“Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where he found a disciple named Timothy, the son of a believing Jewish woman and a Greek father. 2The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, so he took him and circumcised him on account of the Jews in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Now if you don’t know how the Jews circumcise they literally put their mouths on the penis and suck the blood out.
https://www.google.com/search?q=jews+suck+blood+from+circumcision&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS878US878&sxsrf=ACYBGNT94OmB5Mt5kb7BS1APRRjUF14f8g:1578127104588&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmt-rLxenmAhXaBc0KHcSgDUMQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1536&bih=722#imgrc=y4gmJTus1sYBxM:
So we can conclude Paul put his mouth on Timothy’s (and only God knows how many more men’s) johnson. So what’s gayer squatting while peeing or sucking on another man’s penis? Enjoy. 😊😊😊
Ouch, so the Satanic apostle Paul liked putting his mouth on boys’ penises! 🤣
On the issue of urinating sitting, it just goes to show how desperate these crosstian pagans are. Chances are that Jesus and his disciples also urinated while sitting down. In the Talmud, it is stated that one should urinate sitting down unless one can assure that there will be no splashing. This would be possible only if one was urinating on top of a cliff or while standing on loose soil.
Berakhot 40a:3 states:
“And Rava bar Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: Urine only completely leaves the body if one urinates seated, as, otherwise, due to concern that drops of urine will drip onto his clothes, he attempts to conclude prematurely. Rav Kahana said: Over loose soil which absorbs the urine, one is not concerned that it will splash on him; therefore, even when standing the urine leaves his body. And if there is no loose soil there is another way to prevent the urine from splashing on his clothes while standing. Stand on an elevated place and urinate down an inclined plane.”
In Tur Orach Chaim 3:1, it states:
“He should not urinate standing, so that the drops not drip on his feet and he appear like a eunuch, resulting in slander about his children, except where he can stand in a high place or will urinate into overturned soil. He should take care concerning the prohibition not to take hold of the member and urinate, except from the crown down to the ground side, even if he is married, and should not make his needs wait.”
So, unless Jesus was always in an elevated place or on soft soil, he would have urinated sitting down.
Denver: If nothing wrong with concubines and is not evil, any Muslims with daughters, mothers, cousins and sisters that I can have?
Oh please. Most of your kind are closet homos anyway.
A closet homo is a prophet who squat while peeing and suck on little boys tongues. Ouch
The closet Sodomite is triggered. 😂
Squatting while peeing is gay. Not according to sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists or other social scientists, but according to…Sam Shamoun.
The original argument that I was making was the hypocrisy of Muhammad to get special revelation to get more than 4 wives, while all other Muslims could only have at the most 4 wives.
The getting of special revelation for him to get special treatment is the problem.
And Aisha’s statement is telling: “it seems Allah is swift to meet your desires”
Him getting special permission from Allah did not pass the smell test with Aisha.
Which shows that this was not revelation from the true God at all, but rather him manipulating and claiming “revelations” from God.
Temple: The original argument that I was making was the hypocrisy of Muhammad to get special revelation to get more than 4 wives, while all other Muslims could only have at the most 4 wives.
Why didn’t he get special revelation for alcohol or not having to wake up for Fajr or not having to perform Tahajjud or not having to fast throughout the year or not having to physically participate in wars, etc.? You are a piece of crap, Ken.
irrelevant non-sequiturs. you jumped to other issues to obfuscate rather than deal with a real problem that brings up a lot of questions.
Hi Ken,
How is Aisha(ra)’s statement “it seems Allah is swift to meet your desires” different from what God promised to David(as) in 2 Samuel 12:7-8 ?
“How is Aisha(ra)’s statement “it seems Allah is swift to meet your desires” different from what God promised to David(as) in 2 Samuel 12:7-8 ?”
I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you
from the hand of Saul; I gave you your master’s
house, and your master’s wives into your bosom,
and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and
if that had been too little, I would have added as
much more
So here is a pretty clear statement, from Yahweh to David, that
Yahweh gave David wives, and the implication is that Yahweh
gave them to David as a sign of his blessing and approval of David.
How does Copan maneuver around this text? Two lame arguments. We’ll look at the second first
He claims that the transference of Saul’s wives was merely the
only explicitly noted portion of the “house” of Saul that God gave
David, such that David became the master of Saul’s “estate” without actually being married to all of Saul’s wives. Noting that Saul’s
wife Ahinoam (1 Sam 14:50) was mother of David’s wife Michal
and that levitical law prohibits the marriage of a mother-in-law
(Lev 18:17), he argues that the wives of Saul that David received
as part of his new position should not be assumed to have become
additional wives for David. So, Copan concludes, this text, despite
appearances, really doesn’t endorse polygamy (115).
But the text says Yahweh gave Saul’s wives (plural) to David.
Not all of them were Michal’s mother. Only one, in fact. This isn’t
hard to reconcile. So either Ahinoam was dead, or God gave all of
Saul’s wives, excepting Ahinoam, to David. Enough said. But his
first argument is the one that really displays Copan’s capacity to
grasp at straws.
Cautioning his readers not to take the terminology of “giving
wives” too literally, he calls attention to the same word in 2 Samuel 12:11, in which God tells David that he would “give” his wives
to his son Absalom. This, argues Copan, is clearly not evidence
that God approves of polygamy, since the giving of David’s wives
over to a traitor is (apparently) hard to imagine (115).
On the contrary, it only reinforces the fact that these texts assume Yahweh gives multiple wives as a blessing. What verse 8
clearly says is that God gave David many wives as a blessing, and
what verse 11 clearly says is that God will take away that blessing
in order to punish David. Yahweh isn’t giving Absalom David’s
wives because he approves of Absalom; he’s giving them away
because he (currently) disapproves of David. To wit: Yahweh gives
and takes away the blessing of many wives. The many wives are
assumed here to be a sign of David’s greatness. “If that had been
too little,” Yahweh says, “I would have added much more!”
Copan concludes his argument on polygamy by stating, rather
ludicrously, that when Proverbs 5:15-18 counsels men to find
pleasure and sexual satisfaction within the confines of monogamous marriage (“Drink . . . fresh water from your own well”), this
is the accepted norm (116). But this is misleading, because verse
20 makes clear what verses 15-18 mean. It’s not arguing for monogamy over polygamy. Verse 20 specifically says not to be intoxicated by an “adulteress.” It’s warning against illicit promiscuity
with another’s wife (think David and Bathsheba), not against polygamy (think David and Michal and Abigail).
“irrelevant non-sequiturs. you jumped to other issues to obfuscate rather than deal with a real problem that brings up a lot of questions.”
Do you even know what a non-sequitur is, dummy? You know what’s a non-sequitur? Your low-level polemic against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
The argument against your idiotic polemic is valid because why would a false prophet fake revelations that put hardships on him?
Like Kmak said, you are a piece of crap.
It’s unbelievable how dishonest Ken Temple is.
It really is. Sadly, this is how most Christian apologists are.
@ Ken
As I said the last time you mentioned this his number of wives is not a violation of the Quran and was limited. Majority opinion is this is so we have more witnesses to his family life (and he pretty much did every type of marriage one can do) So if you’re going to be consistent he had more restrictions placed on himself such as prayer (6 times a day) and fasting longer. Was he “manipulating” this to his favor as well? Combine this with the fact that if he wanted to be manipulative he could have just not put the rule to begin with or abrogated it. Also that is NOT was Aisha(ra) was saying as I said earlier. Just repeating the same thing doesn’t then make it true.
Haha, I don’t care if Paul is gay, straight, transgender. Not my problem.
Not because your prophet could not piss properly that makes sitting down better. He pissed on his leg while sitting down lol It’s gay and disgusting.
Sucking on tongues when it’s hot makes it worse, not better. You’re already stupid. You don’t need Muhammad to make it worse for you. Lol
He was also a transgender as well wearing his child bride garment. Is it proven by science to wear your child bride garment is better? It was very hot, the child bride garment kept him fresh?
Don’t ask me a yes or no answer. When you can’t answer if your mother, sister, daughter and cousin will be good concubines. 😉. Second time and still no answer. Be a good Muslim, nothing wrong and evil about it. Just say yes so as I can laugh at you.
Denver: He was also a transgender…
Interesting. Can you name just ONE historian who characterized Muhammad as a transgender?
Oh I know who this is. This is the whore of Babylon. You can tell how she jumps from topic to topic. Hey whore, did you get that GED yet?
Faiz, I think it’s just Shamoun. Obviously he’s not going to use his real name to share his fantasies about Muslim women.
@Q&B your wife teeth look like a 10th pole lol.
Which of your prophet suck for circumcision or getting sucked by another person? Since a lot of them are Jews Lol. And somehow the message of Allah turned into sucking penis. Hahahahahaha the Jews taking the piss at Allah lol. That was funny. At least you make me laugh.
You’re a waste of time. When you give female member of your family as concubines. Come back and say nothing wrong or evil. Your ashamed of the teaching of Muhammad. That why you can’t say your mum would be a great concubine lol. Keep diverting since your following a low iq prophet.
There’s no study showing that men who pee while squatting are more likely to be gay than men who pee standing. Then again, if Shamoun-who didn’t even complete high school-says otherwise, who are we to disagree?
I did not ignore the concubines; they are mentioned in verse 3. 1 Kings 11:3
They are also a group of the foreign women, who were pagans / idol worshippers, who turned Solomon’s heart away.
The word for “wives” and “women” is the same Hebrew word.
If concubines were ok, the text would not have even mentioned them at all.
So, no, I did not lie.
and you are wrong.
Post the remaining of the article.
crossworshipper :
The original argument that I was making was the hypocrisy of Muhammad to get special revelation to get more than 4 wives, while all other Muslims could only have at the most 4 wives.
/////
“special revelation” in a place where you can have unrestricted number ?
“Also, the clear commands of Deuteronomy 17 was for the king to “NOT multiply wives”.”
Now, Copan concedes that the real problem with Solomon’s
marriages (700 hundred wives and 300 concubines) was that
they were, besides being ridiculously excessive, political alliances
that led to the worship of other gods. The problem with Solomon’s polygamy was therefore not polygamy per se, but the infiltration of foreign deities into Israelite religion through Solomon’s many wives.
Copan reads Deut 17:17 without any reference to source criticism whatsoever, as if Deut 17:17 was written in Moses’ day and predicted or forewarned against kings taking an excessive number of wives. Here’s what the text says:
When you have come into the land that the Lord
your God is giving you, and have taken possession
of it and settled in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king
over me, like all the nations that are around me’,
you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord
your God will choose. One of your own community
you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your
own community. Even so, he must not acquire
many horses for himself, or return the people to
Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the
Lord has said to you, ‘You must never return that
way again.’ And he must not acquire many wives
for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also
silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself. (Deut 17:14-17)
Now, the broad scholarly consensus is that most of Deuteronomy was written during the time of King Josiah, in order to legitimate his novel religious and political reforms. This text is clearly anachronistic in the Mosaic period. One tradition in 1 Samuel says
that God didn’t want a king over Israel, but that Israel insisted
upon having a king. But this Deuteronomistic text already grants
Israel permission to have a king, well over a hundred years before
they even insist on having one. And this particular passage was
clearly written in direct response to Solomon’s sins. It was written after the fact, by Josiah’s people, as an indictment of royal excesses which led to idolatry.
Referring to the things prohibited to the king here in Deuteornomy 17, Copan naïvely comments that, indeed, Solomon committed all of these acts (111). It apparently doesn’t occur to him that the list of prohibitions was written precisely with Solomon’s (already historical) excesses in mind. Solomon acquired many horses, he acquired silver and gold, and he acquired many wives, including an Egyptian princess, causing his “heart” to “turn away.”
See 1 Kgs 11:1-4, where the language closely matches that of Deuteronomy 17. And remember that the book of Kings was fashioned by the same author(s) who wrote most of Deuteronomy.
What’s taking place here in the Deuteronomistic History is that all
of the events of the past are reinterpreted according to the ideology underwriting the Josianic reforms, and that ideology is legitimated by the forged Deuteronomy legislation which was said to have been “lost” in the temple walls and conveniently found by
Josiah’s high priest.32
At any rate, Solomon’s marriages really have no bearing on
the polygamy discussion, because it’s clear that the problems
there were outrageous excess, political alliances, and the introduction of foreign cults into Israel.
/////
you were talking about “fabricating revealations” these guys were fabricating “revelations” due to not feeling comfortable with deeds of yhwhs pimps.
@ Denver
Ahhhhhhhh….you’re mad! That’s hilarious.🤣🤣🤣