Is 1 Samuel 15:3 and Numbers 31 explained under Christian apologetics ?


20200507_150345By: Mustafa Sahin

Christian Apologists admits in a Debate ” lots of really bad things in the Old Testament” meaning that his Jesus the God of the Old Testament commanded his followers to go and kill; Men, women, children and infants. The verses in the O.T (1 Samuel 15:3) & (Numbers 31) in the name of Jesus.

Ali Atai pointed out, that Moses in the Bible in Numbers 31.

Killed Women and Children, and the non virgins girls were given to men. So they can be raped. Otherwise why would virgin girls lives spared? And not the non virgin ones? This is all ordained by Jesus, because Christians say Jesus is God. And saying that was the Old Testament doesn’t make the “crime go away”.
Read also 1 Samuel 15:3, again the Bible endorsed the killing of women and babies.

1 Samuel 15:3 New International Version (NIV)3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Yes, Jesus the God of the O.T endorses for his followers to go stick swords into infants. Numbers 31:17-18 King James Version (KJV)

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Exactly keep all the virgin girls to “yourselves” If Jesus was alive today he would be arrested for war crimes he commited in the Old Testament for endorsing such violence that, He would be held accountable under the Human rights watch, and charged for war crimes under the United nations commission.

Christian Apologist David Wood is reminded again, of the bad things in the Bible see:

David wood says, those bad things happened because of the hardness of their heart meaning they were sinners.

My response:

And so what was their sin? It was “Unbelief”..

And so God sent them a army and killed them by the sword, and even infant babies and children were killed. However the non virgin girls were killed but not the virgin ones. So if they all were sinners due to unbelief why were the virgin lives spared? And then how can babies and children be sinners? What sin did a infant commit? There’s Davids claim they deserved death because they were sinners doesn’t make sense.

Now just imagine, we said that Allah gathered a Muslim army to go and kill babies and infants women and children because they were “sinners”?

David wood, would have had a field day with this, and said look how barbaric Allah is,  He even tells Muslims to stick swords into infant babies, women and children.

So David Woods explaination fails miserably. Claiming they were sinners doesn’t work, as not all sinners were killed, and we know babies can not sin, since they are sinless. And if you want to claim all babies are born into sin, then are we to believe that all babies should be killed including all humanity because we are all born into sin? So again that makes no sense. So what we are left with, the Biblical God of the Old Testament is presented as a bad God, with bad Morals. Now someone might say, what about Allah who kills babies and infants by natural disasters, like cyclones and hurricanes.

I would argue, there is still a difference, why? Because here we see God working alone, He gives life and takes life. And so if He wishes to take a life, by natural means so that life returns to him, so be it. But then on the other hand you have a God, that specifically instructs human beings to stick swords into infants because he claims they are unbelievers and in sin, but then the same God says, don’t stick swords into older virgin girls who are sinners too. So why does God prefer virgin older girls over babies? Its really bizzar. And what makes it even more so bizzar, is when Christians all day argue how evil and barbaric Terrorism is, and they point to groups like Al-Qa’ida or ISIS who commit acts of Terrorism like blowing themselves up in market places, killing both men, women and children. And they do this because they are brain washed to believe this is what God is instructing them to do. And God is instructing them to do this, because they are sinners and unbelievers. And so the Christian will say, look at this barbarism, look at this Terrorism. And if that Terrorist said, I’m doing this because God told me to do it. The moral justification would never be accepted by a Christian, which begs the question then, why do they accept the Terrorism ordained by the Biblical God, who tells his soldiers to do the very same act of ISIS.

1) Kill the sinners

2) Target women and children

Or perhaps there is a double standard here. One standard for Arab terrorists. And another standard for Biblical Terrorists?

Refuting Keith Thompson Part 1/2:

Topic: is 1 Samuel 15:3 literal or Non-Literal?

Keith Thompson thinks so his article can be found here: http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/religion_of_peace.html

He Writes;

Muslim apologist Nadir Ahmed argues, “Christians also believe that God inspired the Bible. Therefore, if God = Jesus, then it was Jesus(God) who inspired this commands [sic] to go commit genocide against this nation of people as we read in 1 Sam 15:3. These are Jesus Christ’s words. What is even more demented, is that Jesus Christ ordered the killing of babies!”(6). However, there are several problems with Ahmed’s “analysis.”

As noted, this type of “destroy all that they have … man and woman, child and infant” language was commonplace in the Near East and is not to be taken literally. It was simply a way back then of saying there was going to be war victory. How do we know Saul did not literally annihilate all the Amalekites including women and children? Because later in 1 Samuel 27:8 we see that there are Amalekites still living. They are also seen again in 1 Samuel 30 in massive number (four hundred) (vv. 1, 17). Thus, to argue Saul literally wiped out of all Amalekites including women and children is erroneous since the totality of the book demonstrates a great number of them were not meant to be killed. Again when those in the Ancient Near East would say they were going to (or did) wipe out all of the people of a land; it was a hyperbole to communicate desired decisive war victory.

Now it must be asked: who were the Amalekites and why was war with them justified? Immediately after Israel crossed the Red Sea and camped in the wilderness in Rephidim in Exodus 17, these barbaric nomad Amalekites viciously attacked them there (Exodus 17:1, 8). As Copan notes, “The Amalekites were relentless in their aim to destroy Israel, and they continued to be a thorn in Israel’s side for generations (e. g., Judg. 3:13; 6:3-5, 33; 7:12; 10:12; etc).”(7)

Muslim Response:
This Rebbutal is going to be very short and very simple. Keith argues that when God orderd Biblical followers to go and kill all the Amelikites including Women and Children and Infants this does not mean “Literally” what is the Bases of his arguement? Simply because in other passages of the Bible their were “Still Amelekites found living.

This arguement is so bad and embarrassing” all it takes is some common sense. Just because” Their was a WAR ordering the total extermination of the people, yet finding people who survived the onslaught does not mean the onslaught did not take place. That would be equivalent to say, if we found Holocaust survivers living in a place “still alive” it does not mean a ” Holocaust did not take place. In fact during WARS or say” WARS intended for genocide doesn’t mean the perpetrators are going to get ” Everybody. As you know during WARS people flee their home lands and even go into hiding. So to claim Because there were still Amelekites found living does not help at all ” Keiths arguement that vast majority of the Amelites did not get slaughtered in fact he only mentions their was 400 of them found still living which proves still that thousands and thousands of them got slaughtered and only 400 fleed the town or went into hiding makes just as a valid arguement.

Infact that’s a contradiction made Keith, because Saul was told why he didn’t destroyed the entire Amalekites….

“But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.
(1 Samuel 15:20)

Keiths is clearly being deceptive. That’s not the language for that time it’s a literal statement when they said destroy all living things

When we even go to the (Christian Tefsir)

Mathew Henry commentary: Tells us that the Evil amoung them were Sacrafised to the Lord. What does Sacrafise mean?

Pulpit Commentary Tefsir: Tells us that ALL living things to be killed including Men and Cattle to be killed, and even the Gold and Silver taken off them and be put into a treasury and all their belongings Burnt down. Again how is this Non-Literal?

John Gills commentary Tefsir:
Again John Gill talks about how all will be slaughtered Men Women Children Infants and Animals. Nothing about non-literal terms as Keith Suggest in all of the commentary here.

If Keiths arguement was ” True” then we would see the same consistency else where in the Biblical Wars. Take for example (Numbers 31) Where Moses and his Army killed many Women and Children and were orderd to kill the Non- virgin girls and leaving the Virgin ones alive to be distributed as spoils of War. Now how will Keith Thompson explain away keeping virgins girls to give away as spoils of War after Murdering their Parents? Literally? So his arguement fails on the premise of ” Inconsistency”. If 1 Samuel 15:3 is Non-Literal them so ought to be Numbers 31 which is clearly not.

Keith Thompson then went onto say that the War was Justified, yet how can Sticking Swords into babies be Justified blows ones mind. And claiming it’s not literal has no biblical bases at all.

Refuting Keith Thompson on Numbers 31
Part 2/2

By:Mustafa Sahin

He Writes here: http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/religion_of_peace.html

Rape of Virgins Advocated in Numbers 31:17-18?

“17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:17-18).

Offering an Islamic distortion and misuse of this text is Zaatari who claims that in this text the Israelites “left all the virgins to themselves whom they obviously slept with.”(19) However, this inaccuracy or lie is refuted when 1) one realizes premarital sex (fornication) is condemned in Deuteronomy 22:13-21; and 2) one consults 25:1-4, 6 of Numbers for the context of 31:17-18.

Once task two is done one understands the Moabite and Midianite women had sexually enticed the Israelite men to worship false gods such as Baal. Hence, the reason God spared the young virgins among the Midianites in 31:17-18, instead of the older women who slept with the Israelite men, was because the young virgins were not guilty of this heinous crime. Only the older women were. It was therefore a kind and merciful gift that these young innocent virgins were spared by Moses and the Israelites in 31:17-18. As Old Testament scholar Ronald B. Allen relayed,

“Only young girls … would be saved alive; only they had not contaminated themselves with the debauchery of Midian and Moab in Baal worship (v. 18). The suggestion is that the participation of women from Midian in the debased orgiastic worship of Baal described in chapter 25 was extensive, not selective.”(20)

It is the Muslims who read into the text the false idea that the Israelites took the young virgin girls in order to sleep with them. The text does not actually say such a thing, however. Thus, it is not “obvious” that this occurred as Zaatari claims. This is the Muslim mindset and lifestyle (Muhammad slept with a child named Aisha. being read backwards into the text when the text itself does not actually say these things. Titus 1:15 gives the reason why Muslims such as Zaatari pervert this merciful act toward these innocent virgin girls turning it into something corrupt and perverse: “To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled” (Titus 1:15).

Muslim Response:

Here we go Keith Thompson yet again makes seriously bad arguements, he goes on to say” the Bible no where makes the claim that the virgin girls kept in this passage were ” Used” for sex. And the reason why they were kept alive and only the Non-virgin ones were killed because they defiled them selves meaning had illegal sex with the idols unlike the virgin ones who were spared. Not because they wanted virgin girls for sex he argues rather because they unlike the Non-Virgin ones did not commit fornication with Idols.

Now if this arguement was valid? One needs to ask “Keith” if the purpose of keeping the Virgins alive was not for sex, why was not the “little ones from amoung the males spared as well? Is Keith Suggesting that little male children like babies and infants and kids were also defiled themselves fornicating with Idols? Now how absurd would that be? And how come these virgin girls were given to a Priest as a tribute by Moses( Bible Numbers 31:40). What is a male priest going to do with 32 Virgin Girls? How come women are not given virgin girls and only Men get them? Sounds fishy does it not? Why doesn’t the same Priest not get virgin Male Children if it’s not about Sex?

So as you can see ” Keiths Non-sensical arguements do not add up. At all and only prove that virgin Girls were only taken for Men to enjoy them as concubines. Even King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines in the Bible for him to enjoy

Maybe thats Helal for Moses to follow that Example for why he gave the priest 32 virgins for cohabitation.

Finaly here is a response to Christians why try and throw the Old Testament under the bus to say; That was the Old Testament. Therefore the old testament no longer applies.

Saying that was the Old Testament, doesn’t make the bad moral judgments of the Biblical God go away. It just proves, the Biblical God, was unaware of making the right decisions, which begs the question about a deficiency in Gods wisdom and intelligence on morals, as presented by the Bible on the concept of God.

Allah knows Best.