No you would not. You would go for a Woman, not a girl.
You would kill anyone who went for a girl: because you are a heretic white fuck using a proxy.
Na'ar means child in ancient hebrew.
>Nachmanides points out that a child may be called na'ar from the moment he is born.
>Naar is the same word used to describe Rebecca in Genesis 24:16.
Yes, Rebecca was a child when she married Isacc (according to Rabinnical sources). This checks out.
In the Septuagint the word is rendered as Padia (child) (padia+philos = paedophillia).
In the Latin Vulgate the word is rendered as Puella (young girl).
In Devarim chapter 22 verse 28 it is about tahphas (rape, taking a city, etc), not "consensual only" white-man+whiteWUUUHMAN white-permitted woman-respecting sex.
It is the rape of a girl child, which YHWH rightfully allows and has the man keep his prize.
>Deuteronomy 22:28 refers to a man who seduces and fucks a young unmarried woman. It basically prevents pump and dumps. Do goys think pump and dumps are good or something?
No it does not wh*toid. It explicitly speaks of a man who _RAPES_ (tahpahs) a CHILD (na'ar, padia, puella) female. He keeps her: as it should be.
You white scum oppose this, you are heretics who should be eradicated to the very last man.
> “Eesh” and “Eeshah”, husband and wife.
Wrong again, retard. There is no "husband and wife" as you whites understand it, you subservient matriarchal species.
There is simply man and woman (female)אִשָּׁה, and the man's possessions. The man is refered to as ba'al in Devarim (lord, master, ruler, same title given to gods) of the female.
Oh, and the hebrew in Devarim 22:28 does NOT say "Naarah" נַעֲרָה , retard. If you actually read hebrew it says "Na'ar" נַעַר . Na'arah נַעֲרָה is only by implication because a moment later it does say ishshah אִשָּׁה , you fucking retard: the child (na'ar, padia, puella) becomes the man's female (ishshah).
Attached: afghan14.jpg (982x674, 401.36K)
