FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-26-2008, 11:13 AM   #431
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: georgia
Posts: 2,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post
The Jewish bible says "bondmen" and not servants.
Apparently it also says "servants' - as I just demonstrated.


No, I just quoted the law above. It says "servants". You're wrong again.


Quote:
Also why was divorced permitted?
Who cares. It has nothing to do with the topic, and I'm not going to let you drag us down another of your rat holes.

Still waiting - got any courage yet?

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?
Don't be dishonest now because all I have to do is refer readers to the online JPS Jewish bible that says "bondmen" instead of servants. You are quoting from the KJV and not the Hebrew bible.



And I already responded to your question which you failed to qoute.
sugarhitman is offline  
Old 12-26-2008, 11:14 AM   #432
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
You know that I approve of sending criminals to jail. No intelligent analogy can be made been Old Testament slavery and people who break laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter
Ok, criminals freedom can be taken away from them and this is moral. Thank you for answering the question.
Fine, but since all Old Testament non-Hebrew slaves were not criminals, why did you bring up criminals?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlicter
What activity would you find to be criminal and worthy of the loss of freedom?
But that is not the issue. A double standard is the issue. The standard for Hebrew slaves was more lenient than the standard for non-Hebrew slaves. Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom. Non-Hebrew slaves weren't. Since I have not been discussing the initial loss of freedom, why did you bring up that issue? I have been discussing the rights of Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves after they became slaves.

Why do you believe that it was moral for non-Hebrew slaves to on some occasions be involuntarily forced to be slaves for life, but not Hebrew slaves? Why do you suppose that there was a double standard of treatment for Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves?
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 12-26-2008, 11:16 AM   #433
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
Apparently it also says "servants' - as I just demonstrated.


No, I just quoted the law above. It says "servants". You're wrong again.



Who cares. It has nothing to do with the topic, and I'm not going to let you drag us down another of your rat holes.

Still waiting - got any courage yet?

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?
Don't be dishonest now because all I have to do is refer readers to the online JPS Jewish bible that says "bondmen" instead of servants.
1. It does not say "injured", contrary to you made-up claims.
2. The text says "servant" - I just proved it.

Quote:
You are quoting from the KJV and not the Hebrew bible.
So? The word in Hebrew is the same. If you think that the word is mistranslated in the KJV, then you'll need to provide proof for that. Nobody is going to take your word for it.

Quote:
And I already responded to your question which you failed to qoute.
Now you're the one being dishonest. You utterly failed to respond to this. Would you like to try again?
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 12-26-2008, 11:16 AM   #434
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
Question? The laws for injured slaves does that encourage or discourages abuse?
The laws discourage abuse, but I have never argued otherwise. You are obviously not aware that involuntary slavery for life is abuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
The law for runaway slaves does not tell us what slaves it says slaves.
I am not aware of any Old Testament Scriptures that guarantee non-Hebrew slaves their freedom. Are you?
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 12-26-2008, 11:18 AM   #435
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: georgia
Posts: 2,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post

The Jewish bible says the injured slave law concerns slaves
1. No, it doesn't. It does not say "injured". If you think it does, then prove it. Hint: you can't, because "injured" is something you added ourself.

2. Apparently it says servants. I just provided the verses to show you. Keep running, it won't help.

Quote:
I mean its their book after all or are you able to define their laws better than they?
I just provided the verses that say "servant". I also provided you with a citation from The Oxford Companion.

I win, you lose.
And if you believe the loss of a tooth or eye does not constitute an injury than indeed how prominent your ignorance stands out.



You win alright.....as the most ignorant.
sugarhitman is offline  
Old 12-26-2008, 11:20 AM   #436
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Were the innocent wifes and children of slaves, through no choice of their own, held in slavery for life, being "rehabilitated"?
yes, likely they were. I know a woman that likes to smoke crack. All of her children are born addicted to crack. Should the law take the children away or is she better off living with her mother?

Slavery meant a place to live, food, and someone to take care of you in the form of employment which often took the form of an apprenticeship. These are things it is likely that a parent could not provide as a former slave.

Jubilee provided a reset and avoided the development of a slave caste.

It makes perfect sense if you do not ignore the command to love the foreigners who reside among you remembering that you were once slaves in Egypt.

All the beatings, raping, abusive behavior that you place over the text is not there. I am sure it occurred but it is not condoned in OT law.

~Steve
sschlichter is offline  
Old 12-26-2008, 11:20 AM   #437
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlicter
Slavery meant a place to live, food, and someone to take care of you in the form of employment which often took the form of an apprenticeship.
Obviously not. Consider the following parts of Leviticus 25:46:

KJV - ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

Obviously, the writer believed that involuntary slavery of a Hebrew for life was severe, ruthless, and harsh, but not regarding involuntary slavery for life for a non-Hebrew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlicter
Jubilee provided a reset and avoided the development of a slave caste.
Obviously not. Consider the following Scriptures:

Leviticus 45:26

KJV - And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you take your bondmen always, but over your brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

The texts clearly show that there were two standards of treatment, one standard for Hebrew slaves, and another standard for non-Hebrew slaves. There is no doubt that the writer of the verse considered forcing Hebrews to be slaves for life to be unacceptable, and that he considered forcing non-Hebrews to be slaves for life to be acceptable. The writer obviously considered involuntarily forcing a Hebrew slave to serve for life was rigour, KJV, severe, NASB, ruthless, NIV, and harsh, The Amplified Bible. On the other hand, he obviously approved of involuntarily forcing non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life.

Please reply to my post #432.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 12-26-2008, 11:22 AM   #438
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: georgia
Posts: 2,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
Question? The laws for injured slaves does that encourage or discourages abuse?
The laws discourage abuse, but I have never argued otherwise. You are obviously not aware that involuntary slavery for life is abuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
The law for runaway slaves does not tell us what slaves it says slaves.
I am not aware of any Old Testament Scriptures that guarantee non-Hebrew slaves their freedom. Are you?
Johnny that has already been discussed at length where ive already quoted the verse. Deut. 23:15. I will not play your little game if you persist here is a bible verse that I have made up "from henceforth thou shall be ignored."
sugarhitman is offline  
Old 12-26-2008, 11:23 AM   #439
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
1. No, it doesn't. It does not say "injured". If you think it does, then prove it. Hint: you can't, because "injured" is something you added ourself.

2. Apparently it says servants. I just provided the verses to show you. Keep running, it won't help.


I just provided the verses that say "servant". I also provided you with a citation from The Oxford Companion.

I win, you lose.
And if you believe the loss of a tooth or eye does not constitute an injury than indeed how prominent your ignorance stands out.
No one is falling for that, sugarhitman.

As far as the injury goes - you tried to claim that the "runaway slave law" (Deu 23:15) was a result of an master mistreating or injuring a slave. The problem is that verse says nothing about injury; all it talks about is a runaway.

The verse about the loss of a tooth or an eye applies to Hebrew servants, not slaves.

Quote:
You win alright.....as the most ignorant.
I know far more about it than you do. Of course, almost anyone on this board knows more about it than you do, so it's hardly bragging on my part.

Now: if you think the KJV has mistranslated this word, prove it. Otherwise, you lose and we can all go home now.
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 12-26-2008, 11:27 AM   #440
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: georgia
Posts: 2,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post

Don't be dishonest now because all I have to do is refer readers to the online JPS Jewish bible that says "bondmen" instead of servants.
1. It does not say "injured", contrary to you made-up claims.
2. The text says "servant" - I just proved it.


So? The word in Hebrew is the same. If you think that the word is mistranslated in the KJV, then you'll need to provide proof for that. Nobody is going to take your word for it.

Quote:
And I already responded to your question which you failed to qoute.
Now you're the one being dishonest. You utterly failed to respond to this. Would you like to try again?



"And if a man smite the eye of his BONDMAN, or the eye of his BONDWOMAN; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake." JPS the Jewish bible
sugarhitman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:22 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.