Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[Ingledsva]

ING, Jesus did come to "FULFILL". Therefore, some things which point to HIS saving mission were "completed"---because they were symbolic of that mission of HIS.

The "sexual sins" were not abolished and applied to all of mankind. GOD never allowed "rape" that was done/allowed by those who had departed from the righteous thinking of the Creator GOD.

That verse meant he came to "fulfill" the Messiah prophecies of the Prophets. Nothing to do with changing their laws. The Messiah was supposed to bring about the end, and final Judgment.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Mat 5:18 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.

*
Oh I agree that a "God" didn't allow rape, slavery, etc.

HOWEVER -

The patriarchal males that actually wrote the Bible, - they did!


*

 

[sincerly]

Simplelogic said: ↑
The Torah condemns rape. You are making the common error of associating modern morality with historical. I assume you are offended because the Torah requires a woman being raped to cry out for help.

This command would make no sense in a society like ours. But it did make sense in ancient Israel.

All males of Israel were required to intervene when innocent people were being abused. There was no concept of being an "innocent bystander". To witness violence to someone and do nothing meant that you were COMPLICIT IN THE ACT ITSELF. The command for the woman to cry out was to inform the closest male to come help HER! This command only applied to when a woman was rapped in the town or city (were other men could hear).

If a woman was rapped in a isolated place (away from society) she was not required to cry out. And she could not be blamed for not calling out. The male who committed the offense was to be killed though.

Yes, if you were to rip this command out of the Israelite setting it would completely be distorted because most men today are cowards and do not behave this way. They would just keep walking or act like they didn't see.
Click to expand...

I guess you haven't read the thread.

I very specifically posted verses that ALLOWED them to Rape.

Only the rape of Hebrew women (in most instances) is not allowed.*

ING, those verses you posted were changed to your wording/interpretation/opinion. Rape wasn't permitted by GOD of any---GOD is not the respecter of persons. That action was the evil cogitation of mankind. GOD condemned such.

 

[Simplelogic]

And you continue to squirm, wiggle, and pretend that these were rare, which is bull. They were not only allowed, but happily carried out for thousands of years.

But I understand why you refuse to see - because you then have to acknowledge the evil built into a religion supposedly from God, - which verses show us, - IS NOT FROM GOD - but from patriarchal men that wanted to own women, own sex slaves/concubines, rape, hold and breed slaves, murder people whom were different, etc.

And as such you would have to acknowledge you are wrong and your religion FALSE!

*

And here is the whole thing again - which you claim not to understand.


Deut 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,

Deut 21:11 And if you see a captive woman, beautiful in appearance, and want to join with/delight in/cling to her, may seize her for your woman.

Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Deut 21:13 and shall remove the clothing of her captivity from her, and shall live in your house, and shall morn for her father and her mother a month of days. And afterward shall go into her as master, making her your woman. (slavery, rape)


And my reply to you concerning -




*

You are reading modern context into a ancient text.

Israelites were allowed to marry women of nations they conquered. A woman without a man during these times was as good as dead. There wasn't a walmart she could work at to pay the bills. There was no means of providing support and livelihood for an independent women. There were no independent women!! All women depended on a man whether father or husband to provide for them. You are reading into the word "seize" and assuming aggressive rape. And yes, males have authority over females…sorry.

Marriage in many cultures today is still arranged and always about the choice of the woman. This does not mean she is being rapped every time she has sex.

 

[Ingledsva]

This is silly. You have no idea.

What is silly is people thinking women raped thirty days after capture - is marriage!

Again - let us make this YOU -

YOUR family and friends are murdered, YOU are taken captive, and marched back behind enemy lines, YOUR captor allows you to scream for YOUR dead family for a "whopping" 30 days!

YOU are telling us- at this 30 day point - YOU are - spreading your legs - for the murders of your family? And this sex is consensual marriage? And not RAPE?

Absolute BULL!

It appalls me, how far the - members - of the religions of Abraham, will twist and fudge what the scriptures say, to make their God, and religion, - look better!

As I have already shown - the Jewish Scholars said this is RAPE, and they WERE allowed to RAPE these captives!


*

 

[Ingledsva]

You are reading modern context into a ancient text.

Israelites were allowed to marry women of nations they conquered. A woman without a man during these times was as good as dead. There wasn't a walmart she could work at to pay the bills. There was no means of providing support and livelihood for an independent women. There were no independent women!! All women depended on a man whether father or husband to provide for them. You are reading into the word "seize" and assuming aggressive rape. And yes, males have authority over females…sorry.

Marriage in many cultures today is still arranged and always about the choice of the woman. This does not mean she is being rapped every time she has sex.

1. I am not reading anything into it! I have already posted all of the verses.

2. The fact that women in this patriarchal culture were treated like crap - and survival was hard - does not change - RAPE - into marriage.

3. We KNOW they kept SEX SLAVES. What do you think a concubine is?


*

 

[sincerly]

Simplelogic said: ↑
The Torah condemns rape. You are making the common error of associating modern morality with historical. I assume you are offended because the Torah requires a woman being raped to cry out for help.

This command would make no sense in a society like ours. But it did make sense in ancient Israel.

I guess you haven't read the thread.

I very specifically posted verses that ALLOWED them to Rape.

Only the rape of Hebrew women (in most instances) is not allowed.
*

ING, the posted verses of Deut.21:11-14 by you were changed by you. The "red" to reflect the added "rape" which they did not expressed--but your assumption.( as the ALLOWED above)

 

[Ingledsva]

Simplelogic said: ↑
The Torah condemns rape. You are making the common error of associating modern morality with historical. I assume you are offended because the Torah requires a woman being raped to cry out for help.

This command would make no sense in a society like ours. But it did make sense in ancient Israel.



ING, the posted verses of Deut.21:11-14 by you were changed by you. The "red" to reflect the added "rape" which they did not expressed--but your assumption.( as the ALLOWED above)

Interesting choice of word "changed" - I went to the Hebrew and translated them.

They have been "changed" by religious people wanting them to NOT appear to be the RAPE they are.

Here they are again.

Deut 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,

Deut 21:11 And if you see a captive woman, beautiful in appearance, and want to join with/delight in/cling to her, may seize her for your woman.

Chashaq = Join with, delight in, cling to. Laqash = seize, carry off, take. Nashiym = woman, female, wife.

This is a CAPTIVE he wants to JOIN WITH/DELIGHT IN - so he SEIZED her, - thus she is a WOMAN/female, - not a wife in this text.


Deut 21:13 and shall remove the clothing of her captivity from her, and shall live in your house, and shall morn for her father and her mother a month of days. And afterward shall go in unto her as master, making her your woman. (slavery, rape)

Achar - afterward. Ba'al = Master, lord, owner, man, husband. With a CAPTIVE - obviously it is the original MASTER/Owner that is meant.

Note it says GO IN UNTO HER - HAVE SEX WITH HER - not MARRY her!

*

 

[sincerly]

Interesting choice of word "changed" - I went to the Hebrew and translated them.

They have been "changed" by religious people wanting them to NOT appear to be the RAPE they are.

Here they are again.

Deut 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,

Deut 21:11 And if you see a captive woman, beautiful in appearance, and want to join with/delight in/cling to her, may seize her for your woman.

Chashaq = Join with, delight in, cling to. Laqash = seize, carry off, take. Nashiym = woman, female, wife.

This is a CAPTIVE he wants to JOIN WITH/DELIGHT IN - so he SEIZED her, - thus she is a WOMAN/female, - not a wife in this text.


Deut 21:13 and shall remove the clothing of her captivity from her, and shall live in your house, and shall morn for her father and her mother a month of days. And afterward shall go in unto her as master, making her your woman. (slavery, rape)

Achar - afterward. Ba'al = Master, lord, owner, man, husband. With a CAPTIVE - obviously it is the original MASTER/Owner that is meant.

Note it says GO IN UNTO HER - HAVE SEX WITH HER - not MARRY her!*

"Changed"? Yes, as you have tried to show with the above usage of non-applicable words for the context meaning.
in verse 11 the word used for the English "woman" is the Hebrew word "Ishshah" not "nashiym"as you posted. Ishshah means "wife" in 425 times of translating in the KJV. "Woman" 324 times and female twice.

"Chashag"has the usage as "filleted" 3 times; desire 3 times; set his love twice; delight once.
"Filleted" was rendered the joining together as was seen in the brass with gold in making the parts of the "sanctuary".

'laqach' had the meaning of "to take"747 times (as to your home); receive, 61 times for one's self; take away 51 times from one place to another.
Therefore, the correct understanding of the context is NOT AS YOU have insisted.
Deut.21:11, The Masoretic text: for "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;"
Moses was sawing "When a battle in the promised land occurred such a "setting of ones love" for one of the captive women to be one's wife may occur. As seen with the "When". No rape/sex has taken place. Nor is rape advocated by GOD in that "when" nor other scripture.
From the making of Adam and Eve---sex was to be by/with one man and one woman/female. Anything else was sin.


וְרָאִיתָ בַּשִּׁבְיָה אֵשֶׁת יְפַת־תֹּאַר וְחָשַׁקְתָּ בָהּ וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃

 

[Ingledsva]

"Changed"? Yes, as you have tried to show with the above usage of non-applicable words for the context meaning.
in verse 11 the word used for the English "woman" is the Hebrew word "Ishshah" not "nashiym"as you posted. Ishshah means "wife" in 425 times of translating in the KJV. "Woman" 324 times and female twice.

Sincerely - "Chashag"has the usage as "filleted" 3 times; desire 3 times; set his love twice; delight once.
"Filleted" was rendered the joining together as was seen in the brass with gold in making the parts of the "sanctuary".


ING - Do you not even stop to read what I wrote? These are what I posted -

I wrote - Chashaq = Join with, delight in, cling to.


Sincerly - 'laqach' had the meaning of "to take"747 times (as to your home); receive, 61 times for one's self; take away 51 times from one place to another.


ING - I wrote - Laqach = seize, carry off, take

To take a captive you find sexy - is to SEIZE her.


Sincerly - Therefore, the correct understanding of the context is NOT AS YOU have insisted.


ING - BULL! It is as I stated - RAPE!


Sincerly - Deut.21:11, The Masoretic text: for "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;"
Moses was sawing "When a battle in the promised land occurred such a "setting of ones love" for one of the captive women to be one's wife may occur.


ING - You folks continue to be a hoot! Dragging a beautiful captive home to RAPE - is not love! Nor marriage! Not even if Jewish law call it that!

It is the RAPE of a prisoner.


Sincerely - As seen with the "When". No rape/sex has taken place. Nor is rape advocated by GOD in that "when" nor other scripture.

From the making of Adam and Eve---sex was to be by/with one man and one woman/female. Anything else was sin.


וְרָאִיתָ בַּשִּׁבְיָה אֵשֶׁת יְפַת־תֹּאַר וְחָשַׁקְתָּ בָהּ וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃

PURE BULL! This is rape! And the JEWISH scholars tell us it is!


*

 

[Simplelogic]

What is silly is people thinking women raped thirty days after capture - is marriage!

Again - let us make this YOU -

YOUR family and friends are murdered, YOU are taken captive, and marched back behind enemy lines, YOUR captor allows you to scream for YOUR dead family for a "whopping" 30 days!

YOU are telling us- at this 30 day point - YOU are - spreading your legs - for the murders of your family? And this sex is consensual marriage? And not RAPE?

Absolute BULL!

It appalls me, how far the - members - of the religions of Abraham, will twist and fudge what the scriptures say, to make their God, and religion, - look better!

As I have already shown - the Jewish Scholars said this is RAPE, and they WERE allowed to RAPE these captives!


*

First off. You might want to look into the back story of these innocent nations who were "murdered" and "raped" by the Hebrews. Your narrative is typical bait and switch tactics. You make the assertion that the host nation being invaded was an innocent and harmless people while portraying the Hebrews as barbaric monsters, hell bent of rape and destruction.

Almost every region the Israelites conquered were full of despicable people who sacrificed their children on alters to Molech and were having family orgy's (animal's included). They also practiced violent homosexual rap of the younger men. So lets please drop the "murder" charges.

Now lets address the "rape" charges. Your ignorance to the way societies behaved is your biggest problem. A woman's family is slaughtered in front of her, what are her options? Well, the normally they became perpetual sex slaves that would be rapped by soldier after soldier. Her children would be trafficked into some kind of forced labor environment, or sex ring. The woman NEVER had the choice to just go find a job at starbucks or walmart and just keep living. There was no options for the conquered females!! The command which permitted the Hebrew males to (take) a woman and merry her was her only shot at surviving (her children too). Also, a woman who marries a Hebrew male becomes an Israelite immediately! This inclusion into society was unheard of during these days! You are also forgetting that female's NEVER picked their husbands during this time period. Either the family arranged it or the male chooses the woman. None of this had anything to do with rape like you suggest. You are just reading your own progressive narrative into it.

 

[1robin]

Are you suggesting that leprosy is not contagious? With a simple search, I found this:

"Leprosy is an infectious disease that causes severe, disfiguring skin sores and nerve damage in the arms and legs. The disease has been around since ancient times, often surrounded by terrifying, negative stigmas and tales of leprosy patients being shunned as outcasts. Outbreaks of leprosy have affected, and panicked, people on every continent. The oldest civilizations of China, Egypt, and India feared leprosy was an incurable, mutilating, and contagious disease.

However, leprosy is actually not that contagious. You can catch it only if you come into close and repeated contact with nose and mouth droplets from someone with untreated leprosy. Children are more likely to get leprosy than adults."
Leprosy Symptoms, Treatments, History, and Causes

How does this affect what you were saying with regard to the accuracy of the Bible?

What? I said the bible said it was contagious 2500 years before "men of science" said it was hereditary and so the bible must be wrong. The bible said it was and it is contagious, science said it was not contaigious but it is. Maybe this new formatting threw you for a loop or something. I really don't like it myself.

 

[sincerly]

PURE BULL! This is rape! And the JEWISH scholars tell us it is!


*

PURE BULL! This is rape! And the JEWISH scholars tell us it is!


*

ING, it was the Jewish leaders who didn't believe the Promised Messiah when HE came. It is modern "Jewish Scholars" who promote falseness in the Truths of the "Oracles" which was entrusted to them for the salvation of the nations.
Your opinion expressed in the Scriptures and belief in the false opinions of self-serving "scholars" is NOT Scripturally
supported.

GOD did NOT condone the evil actions, but HE knew the evil of one's heart/mind. and dealt with it appropriately to abort the spreading of such----down to the "roots"---the children whose Minds had been corrupted to the point of continuing in the same evil.
It was not the inspired writers of the Scriptures/Messages from GOD who went astray from the Truths of the Scriptures, BUT those "stiff-necked people" who changed the previous instructions of GOD(as you are suggesting/did replace) from GOD'S words(as written by Moses) to their own "evil" inclinations.
That same attitude is prevalent today. The imaginations of mankind's minds are only evil continually.

 

[Ingledsva]

First off. You might want to look into the back story of these innocent nations who were "murdered" and "raped" by the Hebrews. Your narrative is typical bait and switch tactics. You make the assertion that the host nation being invaded was an innocent and harmless people while portraying the Hebrews as barbaric monsters, hell bent of rape and destruction.

ING - RED HERRING! We are discussing HEBREW verses - that allowed them to RAPE women! It does not matter what you think of the other nations! Whom - by the way - were established city states, while the Hebrew were patriarchal, warring, tribes!

Almost every region the Israelites conquered were full of despicable people who sacrificed their children on alters to Molech and were having family orgy's (animal's included). They also practiced violent homosexual rap of the younger men. So lets please drop the "murder" charges.

ING - Apparently you haven't read your Bible, or studied Hebrew history! The Hebrew also sacrificed their First-Born children. As I showed they also allowed the rape of younger children, both male and female! They committed murder against all of the nations around them, claiming God gave them the land. They committed genocide OVER and OVER against their own people - according to the Bible!

Now lets address the "rape" charges. Your ignorance to the way societies behaved is your biggest problem.

ING - LOL! People whom disagree with YOU are ignorant? NOT!
You have shut down your brain in your need to defend your religion.

A woman's family is slaughtered in front of her, what are her options? Well, the normally they became perpetual sex slaves that would be rapped by soldier after soldier.

ING - That is not correct. The law allowed the rape of a captive. Captives taken home as sex slaves were with one owner (concubine,) or possibly breed with other slaves to produce more slaves. I have already provided the verses in this thread!

Her children would be trafficked into some kind of forced labor environment, or sex ring.

ING - Obviously the same exact treatment by the Hebrew! I have already provided the verses in this thread!

The woman NEVER had the choice to just go find a job at starbucks or walmart and just keep living. There was no options for the conquered females!!

ING - This is actually bull! The Bible gives us stories of widowed women.

The command which permitted the Hebrew males to (take) a woman and merry her was her only shot at surviving (her children too).

ING - Again - NOT SO! Captive - against her will - still RAPE!

Also, a woman who marries a Hebrew male becomes an Israelite immediately!

ING - Also false! They could not marry someone that was not already a member of the religion!

This inclusion into society was unheard of during these days!

ING - Also bull! Most nations around them were mixed. The Hebrew were the ones whom tried to keep themselves "pure!"

You are also forgetting that female's NEVER picked their husbands during this time period. Either the family arranged it or the male chooses the woman.

ING - And the female agreed to these marriages!

None of this had anything to do with rape like you suggest. You are just reading your own progressive narrative into it.

NO! It is absolutely RAPE as shown by the verses themselves, and shown by Hebrew Scholars!


*

 

[Ingledsva]

ING, it was the Jewish leaders who didn't believe the Promised Messiah when HE came.

ING - LOL! Jesus did not fulfill their prophecies! Why would they then believe a splinter group, with the usual tried and killed leader?

It is modern "Jewish Scholars" who promote falseness in the Truths of the "Oracles" which was entrusted to them for the salvation of the nations.

ING - This is just pure BULL coming from a Christian! And by-the-way, I provided an ancient actually "Jewish" well-known Scholar, - Maimonides. His father was a Judge, - which explains his knowing the letter-of-the-law!

"To this day, Maimonides and the FrenchJewish sage Rashi are the most widely studied Jewish scholars. Contemporary yeshiva students generally focus on the Mishneh Torah, and his Book of Commandments (Sefer haMitzvot) a compilation of the Torah's 613 commandments." Moses Maimonides (Rambam) | Jewish Virtual Library

Your opinion expressed in the Scriptures and belief in the false opinions of self-serving "scholars" is NOT Scripturally
supported.

ING - LOL! See above!

GOD did NOT condone the evil actions, but HE knew the evil of one's heart/mind. and dealt with it appropriately to abort the spreading of such----down to the "roots"---the children whose Minds had been corrupted to the point of continuing in the same evil.

ING - The usual KILL THE CHILDREN Christian BULL! Children can be retrained into any religious system!

It was not the inspired writers of the Scriptures/Messages from GOD who went astray from the Truths of the Scriptures, BUT those "stiff-necked people" who changed the previous instructions of GOD(as you are suggesting/did replace) from GOD'S words(as written by Moses) to their own "evil" inclinations.
That same attitude is prevalent today. The imaginations of mankind's minds are only evil continually.

LOL! The Bible tells us some of those laws were there because the people were evil! What kind of God allows evil laws - because the people are evil?

The Bible was written by patriarchal, warring, tribes!

Written so they could do the awful things they wanted to do - while claiming such were from God!

*

 

[CG Didymus]

LOL! The Bible tells us some of those laws were there because the people were evil! What kind of God allows evil laws - because the people are evil?

The Bible was written by patriarchal, warring, tribes!

Written so they could do the awful things they wanted to do - while claiming such were from God!

*

It's strange how Christians are such strong supporters of the "OT" and some go so far as to say it is God's infallible word. Yet, they don't follow it, because those "laws" are what God really wants from his people?

And still, somehow the "evil", "born in sin" men that wrote the "OT", were somehow different than those that tried follow it and interpret it? As if the writers could say no wrong? I wonder, who wrote the book of Joshua? How did that person know what God told Joshua? If the event even happened, why would the Hebrew soldiers listen to a leader that told them to kill all the women and children in Jericho because God told him so? All these stories were written after the fact. And the "facts" could be manipulated anyway the writer wanted. I think you're right... warring tribes using their "gods" to justify their actions. Which included "taking" enemy women as "wives". As if a real, loving, just God would do such a thing.

 

[CG Didymus]

I really doubt that it was you that "deduced" the age of accountability doctrine. So, if it's not too much trouble, could you tell me the history of how this doctrine came to be?

 

[Ingledsva]

I really doubt that it was you that "deduced" the age of accountability doctrine. So, if it's not too much trouble, could you tell me the history of how this doctrine came to be?

Whom are you replying to?


*

 

[CG Didymus]

Whom are you replying to?


*

If this new software would do what I wanted, it would have quoted post 5337 from 1Robin. I've asked several times for him to tell me a little bit of the history of the "age of accountability" doctrine. He thinks it's the most sensible, rational, logical conclusion that can be deduced from Scripture. But, I think he means that it makes the most sense to him, therefore, it's the same as being the Word of God.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Torah condemns rape. You are making the common error of associating modern morality with historical. I assume you are offended because the Torah requires a woman being raped to cry out for help.

This command would make no sense in a society like ours. But it did make sense in ancient Israel.

All males of Israel were required to intervene when innocent people were being abused. There was no concept of being an "innocent bystander". To witness violence to someone and do nothing meant that you were COMPLICIT IN THE ACT ITSELF. The command for the woman to cry out was to inform the closest male to come help HER! This command only applied to when a woman was rapped in the town or city (were other men could hear).

If a woman was rapped in a isolated place (away from society) she was not required to cry out. And she could not be blamed for not calling out. The male who committed the offense was to be killed though.

Yes, if you were to rip this command out of the Israelite setting it would completely be distorted because most men today are cowards and do not behave this way. They would just keep walking or act like they didn't see.

We've been discussing the verses that has God tell Joshua to have women and children killed. In one instance, Joshua has his men kill all the non-virgin women and all the boys that were taken captive. Unless a person believes that these stories are The Word of God, it sounds more like the words of brutal tribal men using their warrior god beliefs to justify what they did.

Is it much different than what other tribal people did when their god gave them a vision that they would have victory over their enemy. And then proceeding to brutally kill the men and "take" the women for themselves. What's weird is when it is in the Bible, it's not rape, it's "marriage". And, it is the "proper" thing to do, because if they didn't "care" for these women, it would be a "death" sentence for them... alone in a harsh world. Well yeah, they just killed the families of those women. But, as in Jericho, God even had the woman, and children, killed? And this is a "good" god that ordered this?

 

[Simplelogic]

We've been discussing the verses that has God tell Joshua to have women and children killed. In one instance, Joshua has his men kill all the non-virgin women and all the boys that were taken captive. Unless a person believes that these stories are The Word of God, it sounds more like the words of brutal tribal men using their warrior god beliefs to justify what they did.

Is it much different than what other tribal people did when their god gave them a vision that they would have victory over their enemy. And then proceeding to brutally kill the men and "take" the women for themselves. What's weird is when it is in the Bible, it's not rape, it's "marriage". And, it is the "proper" thing to do, because if they didn't "care" for these women, it would be a "death" sentence for them... alone in a harsh world. Well yeah, they just killed the families of those women. But, as in Jericho, God even had the woman, and children, killed? And this is a "good" god that ordered this?

You can only make these charges by failing to recognize the laws for Hebrews concerning marriage of females from conquered nations.

10“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13“She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. Deut 21: 10-14

Yes. Hebrews were allowed to marry conquered women. Many try to act like the Hebrews were grabbing women on the day of the slaughter and forcing them to marry. This is just plain silly. The 30 days of mourning was a requirement and it would start the moment the women was taken into the home. This could be months or years after the conquest itself!!