04 Dec 15
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat you say is perfectly understandable and of course your point of view.
What you seem to fail to realize is that in my response to S, I was speaking conceptually from the POV of Jesus based on what he stated in Matthew 7:12, hence the verbiage "Jesus understood this.." and "It's not the God of Jesus.". S seemed to understand this and didn't seem to have any problem with that being the POV of Jesus. However what she did take e ...[text shortened]... the OT in Leviticus 25:44-46. AFAIK S never responded which was as expected.
Understand now?
04 Dec 15
3 edits
Originally posted by sonshipYou don't seem to understand Leviticus 25 very well.
Does this command abrogate the other one that any caught stealing a man would suffer capital punishment - death ? (See [b] Exodus 21:16 )
The words in verse 44 ‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. would not mean stealing or kidnapping. So ...[text shortened]... , for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." (Deut. 19:19) [/b] [/quote]
I stop here for now.[/b]
In the following God speaks of Israelite indentured servants and makes a clear distinction between them and slaves.
Leviticus 25
39“ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
In the following God condones the owning of slaves (as opposed to having Israelite indentured servants) and states that they are to be considered property owned for life. So they are in fact "chattel":
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life....
You don't seem to understand "kidnapping" laws very well either. No doubt there were also kidnapping laws in the antebellum south which would apply to "man", but not chattel, i.e., slaves which is a concept that also applies to ancient Israel
To understand the prohibition of "kidnapping" law given in Exodus 21:16, one must understand it's counterpart in Deuteronomy. The following provides an explanation of how differences between Deuteronomy and Exodus are to be taken:
Careful readers of the Pentateuch will know that stories often get repeated. For example, there are two creation narratives and two Flood stories, among several others. The same is true for Israelite law. The book of Deuteronomy is, as its title suggests, a “repetition” or “second-giving” of laws already given earlier in the Torah, and represents Moses’ final testament to the people of Israel. Some laws are the same, some are revised slightly, others are unique.
The clarifying counterpart to Exodus 21:16 is Deuteronomy 24:7:
Deuteronomy 24
7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
This is consistent with Leviticus 25 wherein God made a distinction between Israelite indentured servants and slaves which were considered chattel.
04 Dec 15
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou seem to be talking about yourself not me.
You know, TW, no matter how long you keep repeating false claims, they won't become true.
In your continued effort to avoid admitting that you made a couple of vacuous claims, you've made false claim after false claim.
Yet you oddly seem incapable of pointing out those vacuous or false claims or demonstrating that they are vacuous or false. Instead all you have got is evasion tactics. Your earlier claim that you simply didn't have the time to point them out is wearing thinner by the minute as you continue to exhaustively post evasion tactic after evasion tactic.
You can keep pretending that this isn't true, but just as your claim about "editing out" was so blatantly false,
Yet you seem totally unable to answer my question about your own editing out. Why is that?
So stop pretending, put on your big boy pants and admit it to yourself if nothing else.
Back to the insults I see. That's the best you got? Pretend the other party agrees with you and is in secret denial and will agree with you in secret?
Sorry, but if you want me to admit I am wrong you are going to have to point out what I was wrong about instead of continuing your vague inferences and claims of a 'litany of false claims' that you simply don't have the time to address individually (or at all for that matter).
Tell me, is the earth flat?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Dec 15
5 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIs it your opinion that if these laws given in the Old Testament had been legislated and followed in the American South that the slave trade would have flourished ?
You don't seem to understand Leviticus 25 very well.
In the following God speaks of Israelite indentured servants and makes a clear distinction between them and slaves.
[quote] Leviticus 25
[b]39“ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40They are to be treated as hired workers or ...[text shortened]... de a distinction between Israelite indentured servants and slaves which were considered chattel.[/b]
"And he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21.16)
And if a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a rod, and the servant dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. (v.20)
And if a man strikes the eye of his male servant or the eye of his female servant and destroys it, he shall let that one go free on account of that one's eye. And if he knocks out his male servant's tooth or his female servant's tooth, he shall let that one go free on account of that one's tooth. (vs.26,27)
You shall not deliver to his master the slave who has escaped from his master. He shall dwell with you, even in your midst, in the place which he chooses among your towns, wherever he pleases; you shall not oppress him. " (Deut. 23:15,16)
Do you think the American South would have practiced 300 years of the Atlantic Slave trade had these been law of the land? I do not think so. Just the phrase "you shall not oppress him" would have been sufficient to render slavery illegal.
A distinction between Hebrew slaves and foreign ones I already acknowledged. I will examine more closely the absolute distinction you are trying to establish.
But for now I would say that the treatment of Israel by Egypt was to be so firmly fixed in the Hebrew memory as a reminder by God of how they were to treat foreigners. This reminder is repeated many times - (Exod. 22:21; 23:9; Lev. 19:34; Deut. 5:15; 10:19; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22)
These constant reminders of the injustices they suffered in Egypt included instructions concerning:
Caring for the needy and the alien (Lev. 23:22),
Loving the alien (Deut. 10:19),
Providing for his basic need of food (Deut. 24:18-22),
Promptly paying him for his labor (Deut. 24:14-15).
And ultimately the salvation due Israel was extended to those incorporated into Israel -
"And let not the son of a foreigner who has joined himself to Jehovah speak, saying, Jehovah will surely separate me from His people ... " (Isaiah 56:3a)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Dec 15
1 edit
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
My Recovery Version translates that verse -
" And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have, they shall come from the nations that are around you; from them you may buy male slaves and female slaves." (Lev. 25:44)
I also found similar renderings:
English Standard Version
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.
New American Standard Bible
'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--
International Standard Version
"As for your male and maid slaves who will be with you, you may
JPS Tanakh 1917
And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have:
World English Bible
"'As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have;
I do notice some renderings in English closer to your sample.
I have to step away for a while. Further comments will have to wait.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePeople's hearts are not changed for the better overnight by strict laws alone. I believe these laws of Moses were meant to help those being sold into slavery from other nations from cruel treatment and to gradually change the hearts of the people in the process.
You don't seem to understand Leviticus 25 very well.
In the following God speaks of Israelite indentured servants and makes a clear distinction between them and slaves.
[quote] Leviticus 25
[b]39“ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40They are to be treated as hired workers or ...[text shortened]... de a distinction between Israelite indentured servants and slaves which were considered chattel.[/b]
Originally posted by sonship[/b]Yes, it is clear that the laws on the treatment of slaves in the USA before the Civil War were not the ones from the Old Testament.
Is it your opinion that if these laws given in the Old Testament had been legislated and followed in the American South that the slave trade would have flourished ?
[b] "And he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21.16)
And if a man strikes his male servant or his fe ...[text shortened]... peak, saying, Jehovah will surely separate me from His people ... " (Isaiah 56:3a)
04 Dec 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen something becomes 'socially unacceptable' that is when change finally happens.
People's hearts are not changed for the better overnight by strict laws alone. I believe these laws of Moses were meant to help those being sold into slavery from other nations from cruel treatment and to gradually change the hearts of the people in the process.
Not one millisecond before.
04 Dec 15
Originally posted by SuzianneSometimes - not often - governments initiate change before public opinion.
When something becomes 'socially unacceptable' that is when change finally happens.
Not one millisecond before.
In 2011 the NZ government made a commitment for a "Smoke-free NZ" by 2025
and backed this up with advertising and education. We are well on target.
In 2007 NZ introduced anti-smacking laws ahead of public opinion and these
laws are still, controversial.
Governments can be pro-active and not just reactive!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Dec 15
5 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You don't seem to understand Leviticus 25 very well.
In the following God speaks of Israelite indentured servants and makes a clear distinction between them and slaves.
Leviticus 25
39“ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. ... 40They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents ...
... 42Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
You're saying that Israelites could not be called "slaves" but the foreigners here could be called "slaves." However, other translations show both are slaves, but some distinction in supervision is made.
This comes out in the Holman Christian Standard Bible's translation.
Holman Christian Standard Bible[my bolding]
They are not to be sold as slaves, because they are My slaves that I brought out of the land of Egypt.
The same understanding is given by the Young's Literal Translation
Young's Literal Translation
For they are My servants, whom I have brought out from the land of Egypt: they are not sold with the sale of a servant;
Here we see Hebrew slaves and foreigner slaves.
Or we see Hebrew servants and foreigner servants.
God says there essentially "They (Israelites) are My servants ... they shall not be sold as servants". The same Hebrew word is used twice there which is in Strong's Concordance as Entry 5650 in the Hebrew Dictionary - BONDMEN.
I think this takes some of the wind out of your sails in saying Israelites could not be slaves but the foreigners, now God condoned slavery for them.
To be fair there is a different word used in verse 46
In various English translations I see -
"slaves for life"
"permanent slaves"
"bondmen forever"
"bond slaves"
"enslave perpetually"
The foreign slave, like the Hebrew slave may want to remain his or her master's permanent servant -
"But if he servant plainly says, I love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go out free.
Then his master shall bring him to God and shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever." (Exodus 21:5,6)
This is the case of Israelite slave who voluntarily chooses to be his servant's perpetually.
If the foreign slave had no recourse but to serve forever, then it would not fit that God made provision for those who became of means enough to not only be free but have slaves themselves.
Even if a foreigner became a permanent servant God's laws prevented the Israelite master from taking advantage of him. If a foreign servant was being mistreated by his Israelite master so that he ran away from the harshness, he could escape to another Israelite home for shelter and protection.
"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat [oppress] him." (Deut. 23:15,16)
"This provision wasn't simply for a foriegn slave running to Israel but also for a foreign servant within Israel who was being mistreated. Israel's legislation regarding foreign slaves showed concern for their well-being, very much unlike the Code of Hammurabu, for example, which had no regard for an owner's treatment of his slaves." - Paul Copan
In the prophet Isaiah God shows His compassion for Gentile fugitives fleeing Moab.
" ... Hide the outcasts; Do not expose him who wanders. Let the outcasts of Moab dwell with you; Be a hiding place to them from the destroyer. (Isa. 16:3c,4a)
While you wish to libelously slander the character of God, His heart and His law prove Him compassionate toward the oppressed. While your motive is to show God "condoned" oppression (the apparent intention of the condoning slavery accusation) the prophets reveal His true heart.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Dec 15
1 edit
In Amos God condemns the corrupted judges for taking bribes to make slave labor too cheap for the rich. He is against cheating, inequality, scamming, and unjust measurements and sales all of which are the ingredients of social oppression.
"Hear this, you who pant after the needy To destroy the wretched of the earth, Saying, When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain ?
And the Sabbath, that we may lay open the wheat? In order to make the ephah small and the shekel large and to falsify the balances for deceit;
That we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandels, and sell the refuse of the wheat.
Jehovah has sworn by the excellency of Jacob, I shall by no means forget any of their deeds forever." (Amos 8:4 - 7)
It is not realistic to think only for the Israelites in the land God cared for this oppression. It must have been worse for the aliens among them. God's law and God's heart were against the injustice caused by greed and exploitation.
07 Dec 15
Originally posted by wolfgang59Similarly Australia introduced strict gun control with some success despite the politicians involved expecting to get voted out as a result.
In 2007 NZ introduced anti-smacking laws ahead of public opinion and these
laws are still, controversial.
Governments can be pro-active and not just reactive!