Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I think you're reading way too much into my creation of this thread. I started this thread to keep other threads from being derailed with distractions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I think you're reading way too much into my creation of this thread. I started this thread to keep other threads from being derailed with distractions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not concerned with errors in the Bible, but these questions have come up in another thread. Rather than running down these rabbit holes, I thought it would be better to provide a dedicated outlet for the inevitable.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
contradictions dont exist in the BibleEven if they did, it's irrelevant. Irrelevant to the progression of spiritual growth.
Absolutely. The Bible itself is not necessary for the progression of spiritual growth.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This thread is not about that. I started a thread on Biblical contradictions just for you! 😉
Created:
Posted in:
I've been told "contradictions dont exist in the Bible". I know this to be false, but the discussion really doesn't interest me. I thought one of you might find this a subject you could sink your teeth into...so here ya go!
@Dr.Franklin
Created:
Posted in:
This was RoderickSpoke's question. "Do you think the incidences recorded in the O.T. that specifically deal with the Exodus was fact, or fiction?"
I think the Exodus story is fiction. Millions of people wandering through a desert for 40 years would have left massive amounts of evidence. This evidence does not exist- thus, it did not happen as described.
Created:
I was recently charged with providing an example of a "verse completely void of cross-references that doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible. I think the default response might be to provide contradictions, but this didn't really go with the point that spawned this question. The Bible is thought (by many) to be consistent in its narrative, but given many different minds over a large period of time it wouldn't be surprising if some things did not fit together.
Here was my submission:
Mark 16:8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.This is how our oldest and best manuscripts of the 1st gospel ends. The other gospels writers made sure to have the witnesses TELL other people and have Jesus show his resurrected self! At a later date, someone (it is supposed it might be a scribe) made an ending for Mark (Mark 16:9-20) to fix this problem.
I welcome other solutions to this challenge and criticism to mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I absolutely want believers to read the Bible (all of the Bible)Me too.and not just verses ripped out of context by ignorant or dishonest defenders.Ah...there always seems to be a catch. I guess you're aware of the usefulness of commentaries. What would you suggest? evilbible.com?
Hmmm, I've never considered evilbibledotcom to be a commentary, but I suppose it is. I think relying on more than one commentary would be an good idea, and I certainly wouldn't exclude commentaries written by believers of any Abrahamic faith.
An example of a verse ripped out of context would be Exodus 23:9 as a refutation to the allowance of chattel slavery in Levitucus 25:44-46. Exodus 23:9 says "do not oppress a foreigner...", but a full reading of Exodus 23 reveals this was a direction for judges in legal proceedings regarding foreigners. "Do not favor Israelites in matters of law - be impartial" is another way of saying this. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with legal protocols. The contradiction between these verses is made up. They compliment each other.Oh really? There's no complimenting here. All you're doing is suggesting the Israelites were less than honest. They say one thing, and do another. Or they practice humanitarianism against all foreigners, except those who were purchased in the foreign slave market. They can't kidnap them, but as long as they purchased them, abuse is okay?
I'm not suggessting the Israelites were being dishonest. I'm pointing to the fact that chattel slavery of foreigners wasn't considered contrary to their understanding of humanitarianism.
Israelites could not be slaves, that we've discussed, but we've not ventured into why. The israelites were the "chosen people of God". As far as the Israelites were concerned, they had been claimed by Yahweh and they were his possession. Thus, they could not be anyone else's property - not even each others without consent. Lev. 25:44-46 points to individuals outside of this claim of ownership which the Israelites were not restricted from claiming for themselves.
I'm guessing you're referring to the Barnes commentary.
No. Currently I'm using the Rashi commentary. I figured a Jewish commentary would be most appropriate and insightful.
Even if the verse focused solely on judges, what makes you think a foreign servant wouldn't be involved with judges in a court case? And the command being to judges in treating foreign servants?
I wouldn't expect an individual considered to be property to go before a judge. ...Moving on.
Rashi commentary Exodus 23:9:
"And you shall not oppress a stranger -: In many places the Torah warns about the stranger [convert] because he has a strong temptation [to return to his former bad ways]."
"Convert" makes sense. "Do not oppress the [converted] foreigner" and "take your slaves from the heathen nations" are not referring to the same people.
This goes back to what I said before - there are different kinds of slavery in the Bible: Indentured servitude for Israelites (believers) and chattel slavery for [heathen] foreigners (non-believers).
Keil and Delitzsch commentary Lev 25:42:
"Because the Israelites were servants of Jehovah, who had redeemed them out of Pharaoh's bondage and adopted them as His people, they were not to be sold "a selling of slaves," i.e., not to be sold into actual slavery, and no one of them was to rule over another with severity. "Through this principle slavery was completely abolished, so far as the people of the theocracy were concerned"' (Oehler).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Can you provide an example of a verse completely void of cross-references, and doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible?
Mark 16:8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
This is how our oldest and best manuscripts of the 1st gospel ends. The other gospels writers made sure to have the witnesses TELL other people and have Jesus show his resurrected self! At a later date, someone (it is supposed it might be a scribe) made an ending for Mark (Mark 16:9-20) to fix this problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
..and the explicit wording of the Bible.Kill your engine is pretty explicit. But it certainly doesn't mean to open your hood and take a sledge hammer to it. it simply means, turn the key in your ignition to the left.
"You may buy you slave from the heathen nations which surround you. You may bequeath them to you family and they can be permanent slaves." [Paraphrased]
Lev 25:44-46 is part of Mosaic law. Are you really trying to suggest law was not to be taken literally?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I find little reason to object to an agreement made between consenting adults.Okay. I'll try to remember that the part about Hebrew slavery S1 is okay with.
Haha! Only now, after I've made clear my acceptance of a consensual relationship between Israelites do you stray away from this being a "servanthood" and prefer to call it slavery?! Pick your terms and be consistent, Rod. I'm not playing word games.
That being said, after I wrote this I realized that this type of arrangement would not always be consensual. For instance, a father might sell his daughter into slavery without consulting her, or a young man might serve for a term with the payment being his master's daughter. These situations are not consensual or acceptable.
Best I can tell, you're making a bald assertion that most slave 'relationships' were temporary. I don't buy that, but it does not matter.By arguing most slaves (at best) were temporary you've allowed some permanent slavery. Not to mention, chattel slavery is not characterized by the length of time served, but by humans being owned (which is exactly what Levitical law allows). Is owning humans for any length of time moral, Rod?We don't even know if any foreign purchases even happened. And if it did, it probably would have been very rare. If the permanent slavery was by agreement, like as with the Hebrew servant who loved his master, what would be your problem?
There is nothing that says permanent slavery of foreigners was by agreement. "Rare" means it still happens. Is "rarely" owning humans moral, Rod? I've never owned a human...not even rarely!
Kidnapping a foreigner is punishable by death. Why do you think there was such an extreme penalty for kidnapping/forced slavery, but it would have been okay to force a foreigner to remain against his will, and be able to practice general abuse?
Kidnapping and forced slavery are not one in the same. There were laws against kidnapping. However, there were no laws against buying kidnapped people and/or forced slavery. One problem with your question is that it assumes facts that don't exist. The other is that it ignores what the Levitical law actually does allow.
Created:
Posted in:
...this is not meant to suggest everything in the Bible is complementary. Some things won't fit together given the sheer number of authors and the huge span of time between them.I absolutely want believers to read the Bible (all of the Bible) and not just verses ripped out of context by ignorant or dishonest defenders. So again, I encourage every believer to read their holy book. I do not mean read it as a devotional, but make a concerted effort to understand what thoughts inspired the words and how they fit together as-is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm quite happy to let the words of the Bible speak for themselves. Let every Christian read what should be the single most important collection of literature to them. It doesn't take a Biblical scholar, historian, or language expert to comprehend chattel slavery is condoned in the Bible.Well, people become believers just by the reading the Bible. So I don't think this to be a wise recommendation in terms of your purpose. What I think you're really suggesting is to read the Bible, but don't study it.Just because you ignore the verses that contradict the idea of permissive chattel slavery, doesn't mean others will. When asking people to read the Bible, it's not a good idea to assume they will see as you see.
I absolutely want believers to read the Bible (all of the Bible) and not just verses ripped out of context by ignorant or dishonest defenders. So again, I encourage every believer to read their holy book. I do not mean read it as a devotional, but make a concerted effort to understand what thoughts inspired the words and how they fit together as-is.
An example of a verse ripped out of context would be Exodus 23:9 as a refutation to the allowance of chattel slavery in Levitucus 25:44-46. Exodus 23:9 says "do not oppress a foreigner...", but a full reading of Exodus 23 reveals this was a direction for judges in legal proceedings regarding foreigners. "Do not favor Israelites in matters of law - be impartial" is another way of saying this. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with legal protocols. The contradiction between these verses is made up. They compliment each other.
Even in you're own (dubious) scenario, where most foreigners purchased as slaves are eventually set free, some become permanent slaves (and all are presumably property for a time). How does your understanding of "Do not oppress foreigners" square with that? After all, the verse doesn't say 'do not oppress *most* foreigners!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
That is been my understanding as well, Keith. It has never been my contention that the Israelites were morally reprehensible in comparison to their neighbors or for the time in which they lived, but that they were, in every way that matters, very similar regardless of which deity they believed.
Knowing this, how absurd would it be if modern folks were saying the basis of morality was a god of the Hittites, the Canaanite pantheon, or the golden calf rather than one of Israel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
My claim is quite mundane in comparison, and I've pointed to evidence that is sufficiently appropriate.At this point the only evidence I'm seeing is that the Bible condones chattel slavery because S1, Omar, 3RU7AL and Keith Prosser say so.
...and the explicit wording of the Bible. 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I wasn't asking if you understood the agreement. I was asking if you thought Israelite indentured servitude was immoral?
I find little reason to object to an agreement made between consenting adults.
No, and it is irrelevant. Even if it were not the norm, it is still accurate to say chattel slavery is expressely condoned by the Bible.It most certainly is relevant. If most of the foreign servant relationships end up temporary, there must be a good reason. These foreign servants must be going somewhere. Where do you think the released foreign servant goes?
Best I can tell, you're making a bald assertion that most slave 'relationships' were temporary. I don't buy that, but it does not matter.
By arguing most slaves (at best) were temporary you've allowed some permanent slavery. Not to mention, chattel slavery is not characterized by the length of time served, but by humans being owned (which is exactly what Levitical law allows). Is owning humans for any length of time moral, Rod?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm quite happy to let the words of the Bible speak for themselves. Let every Christian read what should be the single most important collection of literature to them. It doesn't take a Biblical scholar, historian, or language expert to comprehend chattel slavery is condoned in the Bible.There are going to be some people who grow up in church, that don't read the bible a whole lot who will, at least for a time, believe the claim that the bible supports chattel slavery. There are going to probably more who read the claim, and immediately accept it with no question who already have a bent towards the bible, Christianity, Abrahamic religion, monotheism, or religion in general. Once people start to question the empirical demanding claim that the bible supports chattel slavery (or any other demonizing claim) the atheist activist orgs that make these claims will get exposed for what they are. Especially since they'll generally admit that they're not bible scholars, historians, Hebrew/Greek and biblical language experts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No. It seems to me "evil" is only appropriate when applied to a conscious being or an act of a conscious being. Entropy is neither.Is entropy inherently evil?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Public service announcement: if you believe there is no chattel slavery in the Bible...READ YOUR BIBLE.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
This isn't an extraordinary claim, sir. An extraordinary claim would be something like "I can fly like Superman"...or, "I once held my breathe for two weeks". We could rightly expect some substantial evidence in these cases.
My claim is quite mundane in comparison, and I've pointed to evidence that is sufficiently appropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
First question that comes to mind, do you include the Israelite 7 year servitude as a valid alternative to imprisonment, or do you include that in the overall assessment that the Bible endorses the evil institution of slavery?
I understand the indentured servitude agreement between Israelites to be an exchange of service for forgiveness of debt or help with necessities beyond the purchasing power of the would-be servant. It could be that one individual needed a cow, but couldn't afford it. However, he could trade 7 years for a cow. I'm not sure how it would work if he needed two cows...is that still seven years, or would it be 2 service terms? At any rate, it was an agreement for servanthood, not slavery, and individuals would have entered into these arrangements willingly. When I speak of slavery in the Bible, this is not what I mean.
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,Would you agree that the underlined statement suggests that making a foreign servant a slave for life was an option, therefore making the lifelong slaves was not the norm?
No, and it is irrelevant. Even if it were not the norm, it is still accurate to say chattel slavery is expressely condoned by the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I didn't read your link, but I can tell you the appearance of design is NOT the same as design. Magic shows give the appearance of magic, but this is NOT magic any more than the "appearance of design" is design. In fact, labeling it the "appearance of design" strikes me as a concession defeating your conclusion - if it were design, we wouldn't talk about its appearance...we would just call it "design".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information.
I am asking for you to provide proof/information of minds without bodies or of an afterlife. If these things are facts, then this is not an unreasonable request. If either can not be established as fact (as you say) then belief in an afterlife is unwarranted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That is a belief - not evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So what? Tyler state park might be a place where a sasquatch could live...that doesn't mean Bigfoot is real.Hell can easily be a place int eh solar system, I believe it is the core of Venus, while Heaven is the clouds of IO
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What is the evidence? No links, I want to read your understanding of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You've told me what you believe, but not why you believe it in your own words. If you want to convince me, you'll need to do more than state your beliefs, bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So, in your view, minds cruise the cosmos with no body or brain? I don't believe this, and I see no good reason to change my belief. Why do you believe it?
Created:
Posted in:
Public service announcement: if you believe there is no chattel slavery in the Bible...READ YOUR BIBLE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It is true foreign slaves were permanent slaves regardless of their wishes and Israelites slaves only in a very specific situation according to their desire. These are not analogous circumstances in the leastI think they are, but if you would read my post to Castin, it may shed more light on my view.
I believe I understand your view fairly well. Please correct any mistakes: You are against chattel slavery. You oppose sexual slavery. You find beating slaves without punishment wrong.
Unfortunately for you, these are all expressly endorsed by the Bible and not to be confused with the indentured servitude available exclusively to Israelites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hell is reality, there are tons of places in the solar system for hell, and if you need evidence for an afterlife
Meh.
You're missing my point. Do you think the mind survives without a brain? If so, on what verifiable evidence should anyone accept your belief? If not, then possible hells are irrelevant unless you think someone is teleporting corpses and re-animating them somehow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How do you get to a destination if there is no you? Basically, why should I or anyone accept death can be survived without sufficient evidence much less there is a destination beyond death?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
What is evident is that a foreign servant can leave.No, Leviticus explicitly states foreign slaves can be kept permanently...as in... forever[LINK].Yeah, but this is true with Israelite slaves. They can be kept permanently as well.
It is true foreign slaves were permanent slaves regardless of their wishes and Israelites slaves only in a very specific situation according to their desire. These are not analogous circumstances in the least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I am having difficulty understanding your confusion. Do you believe foreign slaves and Israelite servants operated under the same rules? I mean, the passage alludes to different rules for each. The last line draws to mind the jubilee and the option for redemption - neither of which would be available to permanent slaves. This alone is different (and worse) treatment than native slaves. Having your liberty amputated is a fairly significant mistreatment!II think that's like asking if I, an American citizen operate under the same rules as an immigrant not yet naturalized? We're under the same laws, but different rules may apply since the immigrant is not yet a citizen.
It is a matter of laws which lay out exploitation of non-citizens. It is not at all like you suggest.
Okay, I just looked at the link. So can you please explain to me why my statement was out of context?
It has been explained in post #19 of this thread. Let me know what isn't clear:
"As for Exodus 12:49, it refers to passover restriction[s]. Including the passage before verse 49 provides all the context that could possibly be needed to understand it properly. I've bolded the law verse 49 references [which is not all law]."48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you."
In short, exodus 12:49 was never meant to broadly suggest mosaic law applies to foreign slaves.
"In contrast to the laws of other ancient Near Eastern nations,slaves who flee their owners and come to Israel are not to be returned to their masters, nor are they to be oppressed, but they are to be allowed to live wherever they please (Deut 23:15-16).So basically I'm just inquiring as to whether or not that's true. Is that your stance on that verse?
Absolutely, I agree - slaves fleeing from foreign owners/nations were not to be returned to their owners. This does not mean foreign slaves fleeing Hebrew owners were not to be returned or that slaves in general were not to be oppressed. Are we in agreement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The afterlife claim is hollow if it cannot be shown an individual can survive death.Why?
It is sort of like saying there is a wondrous amusement park that can only be reached with a unicorn. The reality of the amusement park can not be verified until the method of travel is found to be real itself.
Essentially, 'death can be survived' is an assumption of facts not in evidence. It would need to to be established true before any claim can be built upon it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
What is evident is that a foreign servant can leave.
No, Leviticus explicitly states foreign slaves can be kept permanently...as in... forever [LINK].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Exodus 21:16He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surelybe put to death.Pretty serious. Wouldn't you say?Or do you not think this verse applies to chattel slavery, which generally involves involuntary abduction?
Chattel slavery is not prohibited by this verse. It does nothing to stop a Hebrew from buying a slave from a foreign kidnapper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You're implying that there was bad treatment (justified by the law) against Hebrew servants.
I am having difficulty understanding your confusion. Do you believe foreign slaves and Israelite servants operated under the same rules? I mean, the passage alludes to different rules for each. The last line draws to mind the jubilee and the option for redemption - neither of which would be available to permanent slaves. This alone is different (and worse) treatment than native slaves. Having your liberty amputated is a fairly significant mistreatment!
Foreigners not being allowed to take part in some ceremonies is certainly not abuse.
I'll just stop you there because you're lost already. As an attempted proof you provided (out of context) a verse [LINK] which seems to suggest (all) law applies equally to foreigner and Hebrew alike. When the context is added though, it is clear this verse is not talking about the law in general, but a specific law.
From what I understand, you feel that since the word foreigner can potentially apply simply to a stranger or sojourner, not necessarily someone from a different nation, that the law stating if a slave runs away, that the law demanding his protection cannot be someone from a different nation?
I ask you to rephrase this paragraph/question. There are a lot of moving parts in there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If a mind is dependent on a brain and the brain dies, there is nothing left to experience life, death, or life after death. The afterlife claim is hollow if it cannot be shown an individual can survive death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But cells still work after your brain dies
I don't get your point here. I have no trouble believing cells may still have metabolic activity after death of the brain, but it is irrelevant. The cells (if they do still work) are no longer working together and that is a prerequisite of the mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You're asking for a definition to be defined? It's not that complicated, bud. You (your body and mind) is alive or it isn't. When your body dies so does your mind. For the dead, there is no life.Define no longer existing, God has provided an answer but not atheists
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What is stops being?
Ceases to be; no longer exists; kaput
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We have good reason to believe death is when 'you' stops being and there is no afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yes, I would be your indentured servant as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46
Well, I could never I'm good conscience take on a slave, Roderick.
I left a bit of verse 46 off. The full text reads:
"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 [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."
The final sentence makes clear foreign slaves are subject to different (and worse) treatment.
All of the proof verses you've provide (with exception to the last) have been addressed in another thread (Link). As for Exodus 12:49, it refers to passover restriction. Including the passage before verse 49 provides all the context that could possibly be needed to understand it properly. I've bolded the law verse 49 references.
"48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
As I mentioned in another thread, noble sentiment and beauty can be found in the Bible.Wow good catch, too bad you end there.
...but I don't end there and neither should anyone else. Making a tacit acknowledgement of the ugliness in the Bible without considering the impact this has on the claims it contains can only lead to dubious conclusions.
We can agree on the sublime in the Bible. We can agree on the undignified. What we can't agree on is that the former outweighs the latter and, because of this, that the Bible should be considered a source of divine inspiration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ok, buddy. I guess the thread is over now. 😭Well,i's true
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ErtlnView destrouyed you
Easy for you to say! 😜
Created: