Boy, some dumb ass god then, making a book the guidebook without being able to update it for modern times then.
Only idiots need updates. Normal people are not crippled by irrational bias.
Maybe they should change the bible text, huh?
Or you should sprout some intellectual integrity.
Because I'm not trying to interpret it at all. I'm looking at the words and saying, okay, they mean what they mean.
Words don't mean what they mean jasper, they carry the meaning of their context.
You're the one interpreting it. Where does the bible tell you to interpret it that way, anyway?
There is nothing wrong with interpretation, it just should be done with logic and honesty.
Where does the bible mention purchasing debt? Which annotated version of the bible is that in?
You keep asking me these questions that highlight your ignorance, and when I answer you, you run away. If you don't know what the bible says, why doesn't your cluelessness give you caution?
Why is that version the right version? Why should I believe some mortal scholar trying to inject hteir own meaning into the holiest words of holiness?
If you're right, why can't you answer simple questions concerning the very text? You contort as much as you like, but words do not have static meaning, and you will not win an argument by obtuse insistence.
I have to say, amazing level of projection there, though. I'm just reading the words that are there. Take it up with Jesus.
Right. And then inserting your meaning, as if the words must have only your meaning. Jesus is not here trying to use idiocy as a debate tool. I'm taking it up with you.
If the Israelite was purchasing people, why would he be punished if he hurt the person? You can't answer.
Maybe?? You mean you don't know?
because they were trying to curb abject cruelty to slaves, I don't know, this is a question for Jesus.
No, it's a question for you. Who was trying to curb abject cruelty to slaves? Why couldn't a man do what he wanted to the slave if the slave was his property?
You do know. But your irrational bias forces you to be a semp. The person was Not his property, the debt was his property.
Maybe "two or three days" actually means two weeks or months, I mean if you interpret it a certain way.
The time makes no difference homer. If the slave was his property, he would not be punished for maiming or killing the slave. You have already admitted you don't know, don't shame yourself any more.
If the Israelite could own a human being, why was the punishment for slavery death? You can't answer.
It isn't. At least not in the whole bible. Maybe in some obscure passage from Timothy.
No sir. It is all over the Bible, starting in the 2nd book of the OT all through to the NT. It's "obscure" to you because you're ignorant of the subject matter.
And again with the maybe. If the punishment for slavery was death, what sort of imbicility must one imploy to conclude that the bible does NOT condemn slavery?
That's not me, that's you.
I consider context jasper. You run from it.
You may purchase slaves both male and female from foreigners around you. There's no mention of debt.
Because you don't know the text. You're just parroting what you've heard, and think because you don't know it, it isn't there.
There's no mention of voluntary indentured servitude.
Of course there is. For the life of me, why does your extreme lack of knowledge not make you less reckless?
There's no mention of penalty for doing so.
And here is where jasper lies. Doing "so" becomes "owning a human being". Atheist with article. Again I ask, if your case is so good, why the need to lie?
Again, take it up with Jesus, maybe they should revise the book.
Jesus isn't the one here embarrassing Himself by pretending to be obtuse. You are, and I'm taking it up with you. No revision will make any book idiot proof.
What's six thousand years ago, exactly? The bible isn't six thousand years old.
Lol. Really? How old is it? You should stop talking when you don't know.
What's that number refer to?
Roughly the amount of years ago of the timeframe of the text.
This might be interpreted as a prohibition on stealing someone else's slave, too:
Suddenly, what the verse DOESN'T say
doesn't matter eh? The verse doesn't say slave. But we already know stealing is wrong.
And "stealing a man" to sell him is the slave trade jasper, since one must gain a slave by force.
don't steal a slave and sell him because he already belongs to someone else.
So if he is not already owned as a slave, stealing him is OK? Do you see how dumb your argument requires you to be?
I'm sure there's a good reason you have for not interpreting it that way,...
Yes, that good reason is called logic and integrity.
...but the words as they are leave that option available.
To the chronically dishonest and/or the terminally stupid, sure. But I honestly don't think that is you.
And I have posted the verses on indentured servitude, voluntary indebtedness, and the evils of slavery several times, so I know it isn't ignorance making you claim not to know them.
That leaves poor reading comprehension or dishonesty, and I know your reading is fine.
