TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ why would a perfect bible make it permissible to kill your slave though?
could it be that revision is needed in the bible as time progresses or do you agree that it is more important to keep the way of the bible rather than keeping the modern morality we know today i.e. that slavery is a terrible act against humanity.
I'd like to get megadoc1, toyo, sparky and bluefete's input on this as well
. I know the slavery thing sounds cruel in the scripture, but there is nothing I can do about it.dark_lord_tnt wrote:bluefete wrote:I have not been around for a while (work and many other things now get in the way) but I read these and had to post them.
If scientists simply followed what the Bible says, they would not look so dotish having to change their theories ever so often.
So gentlemen, some of you really believe this human / ape dynasty dotishness????
Out of Asia? Ancient ancestor of modern man walked Sahara 39million years ago
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 9:00 PM on 27th October 2010
The human family tree may have to be redrawn after scientists found evidence that the ancient ancestors of humans, apes and monkeys evolved in Asia – rather than Africa – tens of millions of years ago.
The astonishing claim follows the discovery of four species of early primate in the Sahara desert, dating back 39million years.
The creatures, or anthropoid primates, are unlike anything yet found in Africa from the same time period or before, suggesting that they evolved elsewhere.Afrotarsius (top left) Karanesia (top right) Biretia (bottom left) and Talahpithecus (bottom Right) were early pre-cursors to humans
Scientists say there is overwhelming fossil evidence that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures in Africa, two to three million years ago. The last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived five to seven million years ago, while we split off from the gorilla branch of the family tree around 10million years ago.
Many researchers believe that the common ancestors of all apes, monkeys and humans also evolved in Africa. But the new finding challenges that view.
More...
* Humans were in China '60,000 years earlier than previously thought'
Dr Christopher Beard, of Carnegie Museum of Natural History and an author of a paper in today’s Nature journal, said: ‘If our ideas are correct, this early colonization of Africa by anthropoids was a truly pivotal event – one of the key points in our evolutionary history.’
At the time, Africa was an island continent. When these anthropoids appeared – after possibly crossing the sea clinging to trees or mats of vegetation – there was nothing on that island that could compete with them, he said. ‘It led to a period of flourishing evolutionary divergence among anthropoids, and one of those lineages resulted in humans.The ascent of man: Human evolution, from apelike beings of 20million years ago to modern man
‘If our early anthropoid ancestors had not succeeded in migrating from Asia to Africa, we simply wouldn’t exist.’
Although the researchers found only fossilised teeth at the Dur At-Talah escarpment – part of the unspoilt, remote Sahara in central Libya – they have a rough idea of their size and shape. The four creatures were small, weighing 4oz to 16oz, and resembled monkeys or lemurs.
Three of the creatures came from distinct families, or ‘clades’, of primates – showing that they had been evolving from a common ancestor for a long time.
The researchers say there is no evidence of similar primates from Africa before 39million years ago.
So either there is a ‘striking gap’ in the fossil record of North Africa – despite more than 100 years of fossil hunting expeditions in the region – or the early primates came from elsewhere, said Dr Beard.
‘This sudden appearance of such diversity suggests that these anthropoids probably colonised Africa from somewhere else,’ he said. ‘Without earlier fossil evidence in Africa, we’re currently looking to Asia as the place where these animals first evolved.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z13dO8YPIQ" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank
What utter rubbish. "Overwhelming fossil evidence" my big foot. But they cannot even find the so-called "missing link".
Oh how Satan has so deceived men into believing what God did not do.
Satans greatest deed was convincing mankind the bible was real!!
All science is , is best guess, they make their best guess with what evidence is at hand, God dint just snap his fingers and made things happen. IS it that hard to believe that maybe god created through evolution ??
Fact 1 ,, Statan did go digging up the earth planting dinosaur bones and that of other creatures, According to the Bible Adam Lived 6000 years ago,, So in that opinion the Earth is 6000 years old. thats BS..
fact 2 ,, according to christian philosophy the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it..
Galileo, often called "the Father of Modern Science," was the first astronomer to claim actual evidence that the earth was not the center of the universe, but revolved around the sun. For this, Galileo came under intense criticism and persecution from the Church. Pope Urban VIII personally gave the order in 1633 that Galileo, then an old man of 70, should be threatened with torture if he did not renounce the heresy that the earth revolved around the sun. Under repeated threats of torture,
Campanella was tortured seven times by the Inquisition for a number of heresies, one of which was writing Defense of Galileo.
Fact 3 ,, Isaac Newton kept his true religious beliefs secret, for fear of persecution, until literally his dying day. He privately rejected his native Anglican Church at about age 30, convinced that its teachings about Christ's divinity and the existence of a Trinity were a fraud. He instead accepted Arianism, a 4th century Christian heresy. Only on his deathbed did he reveal his true beliefs by rejecting the Anglican sacrament. (2) Many Christians opposed his scientific findings as well, for everyone had previously believed that God actively and frequently intervened in the ordinary events of the universe. Christians charged that he "took from God that direct action on his works so constantly ascribed to him in Scripture and transferred it to material mechanism," and that he "substituted gravitation for Providence."
Fact 4 ,, William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, and Adam Sedgewick were all 19th century Christian geologists who originally set out to prove the story of creation and Noah's Flood. But despite their best attempts to reconcile their discoveries with the Bible, their findings kept pointing in the other direction: namely, the earth was several billion years old, not 6,000. One by one, they recanted their belief in the literal interpretation of Genesis and accepted the findings of modern geology. For their intellectual honesty, they came under terrific attack from the Church, which hurled epithets like "infidel," "impugner of the sacred record," and "assailant of the volume of God." Their geology was condemned as "a dark art," "dangerous and disreputable," "a forbidden province," "infernal artillery" and "an awful evasion of the testimony of revelation."
Fact 5 ,, Charles Darwin knew that his revolutionary theories on natural selection would invite the full fury of the Christian world. He therefore delayed publishing his theory for over 20 years, agonizing over the decision of whether or not to publish. His hand was forced in 1858, when he learned that the naturalist Alfred Wallace was about to publish the same theory. His fears proved true -- the reaction from the Church was shock, disappointment and anger. The world-wide attacks on his character, theories and personal life are common knowledge now, but he was saved from physical harm for two reasons. First, nearly the entire scientific community was quick to see the soundness of his theories, and rallied immediately to his defense. Second, the age of the Inquisition and other torture-based persecutions had finally passed.
So if we did listen to the Bible ,,
1.) you wont have electricity (it was declared as the work of the devil by christians)
2.) We sould still think the earth was flat ("If the earth was round as an orange any idiot would know the people on the other side will fall off)
3.) No modern medcine, Just like all of Mother Teresa Hospitals you would lay on the cold damp floor and suffer until u die..
4.) Chances are you would be a slave
etc.. well you get the point.. Science is what teaches us and whats there , The bible has been right so far of almost nothing.. Even God said that there is nothing smaller than a mustard seed .. Apparently he didn't know what he created cause there are seeds a lot smaller..
Again people bring up satan with the classical concept of the Devil. I suggest you research the origin of this. Its not right to blame someone for something they are not responsible for..
d spike wrote:Wow. The Cut n' paster pastor strikes again!
No comment on what is being said, no follow-up... just pelt n' leave...
I miss those conversations when you would actually get a... reply. I know it was just defensive stuff, and irrational at times... but at least it was a sign that he realised you were capable of two-way communication...
Now, it's even more like a bilboard for his successful fishing trips on the internet... and I try to shake the feeling of being shown a lack of respect...
As far as populating Mars is concerned, I notice there is no mention of food. In my opinion, only until the Martian settlers can provide their own food, would such a plan be viable...
If those boys will have to walk with their complete food supplies to sustain them until the next "drop", I wouldn't want to go. However, I have no qualms about nominating Bluefete, megadoc and Toyo to represent mankind, and take that brave step up out there... They will certainly not be without sufficient reading material, as one bible will suffice for them - they have no care or need for any other sort of written matter, for to waste that god-given gift of decifering written characters on mere entertainment borders on being sinful... and only one bible, for if there is a typo/misprint in one of multiple copies, a holy war might break out and a major portion of the settlers might be exiled/slaughtered.
These three would be mankind's best bet on starting a settlement on Mars. Think of the weight, fuel and space that would be saved by using megadoc's faith healing - there would be no need for medicines or medical apparatus. In fact, he probably wouldn't need spare oxygen tanks, either.
These three gentlemen would also be able to perform an in-depth study of curing the evil of homosexuality via faith, with the inclusion of a pretty, blond engineer named Leslie, whose preferences would dismay poor megadoc.
If any of them fall prey to sin out there, then there is the possibility of further study of how to deal with temptation when it has to share the same quarters as you for quite some time.
What do you guys think?
dark_lord_tnt wrote:
genesis history of origin :
"At Moses' time (apparently around 1300 BC), there were actually not yet even any organized written languages yet! (Actual written languages would develop around 100 to 300 years later. Only symbol systems such as Egyptian hieroglyphics yet existed, and they were not languages at all. Worse, they were not capable of expressing sophisticated concepts such as the Sabbath. It would likely take hundreds of picture symbols to express the single sentence, Honor the Sabbath. ) It would be hard to imagine Moses taking the time to carve thousands of picture symbols into blocks of stone, along the lines of the hieroglyphics that existed at that time.
Christianity has matured to the point where it accepts that the first five books were not written by Moses. However, the fundamentalist sects still cling to this claim, as it is the only way their literalist beliefs can be best endorsed.
I have stated before that it is most likely that these books were written around the time of the Exile, Genesis most certainly so.
However, your argument presented above, is based on the lack of the capability of writing at the time. While it is a very credible and moot point, how do you balance this opinion of yours with an earlier point stated by you, shown below?dark_lord_tnt wrote:And even take Jousha ,, who refused one of Arons command from moses because he replied "Its not written so in the book of Jasher) which he held dear above moses..
Do you have an explanation for how a book could exist in a time when writing one was impractical to the point of impossible?
It attributed to the fact that the "TEXT" was an oral tradition while I did quote driectly from the bible, The words "written" was translated as such , The actual translation reads
(It is not so according to the words of Jasher) , So in actuality similar to the text being written at a later date because the original was oral tradition so to was the book of Jasherdark_lord_tnt wrote:So, for very practical reasons, it seems almost certain that (a) Moses was certainly the "author" of the First Five Books of the Bible, but that (b) he did not actually write them down."
Yes, "authorship" is "ascribed" to Moses, simply due to the argument that if it wasn't for him, the books would not have been written.
Biblical scholars have shown that Genesis is really four narrations, some being side by side. One of them (The Yahwist, I believe) shows the narration that the Orthodox helped evolve. This one is clearly seen in Genesis 2, and also explains the more detailed variant of Noah's story.
The question has always been, why did the Hebrews allow this obvious contrast to continue existing? One generally accepted view is that in the days when writing was limited to sacred scripture (in fact, writing in itself was practically considered sacred) then in the minds of those who compiled the stories, all the writings were sacred, so together they were told. Another explanation (and the most likely one) is that even earlier to this, in the oral tradition, all the stories that were told often enough were considered true - megadoc can easily explain this phenomenon of "we all say so, so it must be true" - so when the time came to enscribe the scripture, compilation was the order of the day. I personally believe that the love Jews have for arguing is what prompted them to enscribe all the narrations together, to ensure the existence of argument-starting material in times ahead.
toyo682 wrote:“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. Ex 21:7-11 (NIV)
So I’ll begin with this passage that many seem to think allows sex slavery.
Now in verse 7 the Bible says clearly, “ If a man sells his daughter as a servant” some translations render it as being a slave. The Hebrew word here אָמָה (ʾā∙mā(h)) has several renderings, in its 55 occurrences; it translates as “handmaid” 22 times, “maidservant” 19 times, “maid” eight times, “bondwoman” four times, and “bondmaids” twice. 1 maid-servant, female slave, maid, handmaid, concubine. 1A of humility (fig.). This term was applied both to those who were literal slaves and to those who figuratively call themselves by this term as an expression of humility and submission.
Jeremiah 2:14 (A.V.), but not there found in the original. In Revelation 18:13 the word "slaves" is the rendering of a Greek word meaning "bodies." The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply "servant," "bondman," or "bondservant." Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of slavery (Exodus 21:20,21,26,27; Leviticus 25:44-46; Joshua 9:6-27). And just for your knowledge , see those two funny looking things under ( אָמָה) this changes the meaning of the word. In the case of my passage quote its ( אַהּמּ) taken from the original untranslated (thora) Meaning Slave of the Body or Sex Slave
Female slaves were not treated as other slaves but rather they were to be treated differently. Often in biblical times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class. If a daughter who became a servant was not pleasing to her master she was to be redeemed by a near kinsman (Lev. 25:47-54) but never sold to foreigners (Ex. 21:8); she could also redeem herself.
What is your point ??? God Still condoned it. Is that the moral values you should have ?? Sell me your daughter and your wife, show me how christian you are.. She cannot redeem her self but hope for the negligence of her husband. And I guess you mised the part of the bible that states "If an unmarried woman fornicates she is to be stoned to death ???" and also your crap about foreigners "David to be King David was soled to Foreigners as a Slave by his brothers" stop speaking B.S. in your attempt of Justification.
Within the context of this particular passage it is clear that it is not speaking about slavery in the sense that many believe. The context seems to lend itself more to an arranged marriage. This is clear by part b of verse 7, that states that she is not to go free as male servants/salves do. The law concerning slaves states that a male slave must be freed on the 7th year, however this was not so with females, why? The Bible ascribes to women the weaker role, in fact it calls them the weaker vessel. The women should have a covering, the man is both her physical and spiritual covering. In this sense she moves from one covering (her father) to her (Master/Husband, which I will show). This is why she is not to go free as a male servant/slave, if she does, she will be left without a covering.
That interpretation is utter nonsense , I wont even bother to respond read the above for why..
Now we need to understand that in patriarchal society the husband was considered the master of the wife. Thus in this passage it when it refers the master it is actually talking about a husband in a sense (we will see this further in the passage). Now the passage goes on to say that if she does not please her master he must allow her to be redeemed. In fact in this passage He is forbidden from selling her to a foreigner, why? Because he has broken faith with her v.8. How does one break faith with a slave? It is clear as we move on that once again what is being described here is a type of martial relationship.
"There is now way is it written in that book you hold so dearly its suggested for that period alone, And she wouldn't be brought by a foreigner in any case cause she was defiled",
Now verse 9 goes on to say that if he selects her for his son, and not himself, he is to grant her the rights of a daughter. It is quite obvious here that the Bible is not speaking of selecting her to be a slave as we think, but as an arranged wife for his son. Then the Bible goes on in verse 10-11 to show how the man is to treat her. It then goes on to says “if he marries another“, further proof that it is speaking about an arranged type of marriage. So if he takes a wife besides this one he is still obligated to treat her well, providing clothes, food and martial rights. In contrast to choosing her for his son, obligating him to grant her the rights of a daughter, if he takes her for himself, he has to grant her the rights of a wife.
Concubines are well respected , and what is actually meant by chosen for his son, is that in those day and in other cultures as well men were though about sex from a very young age, she was selected as a concubine for his son.. often referred to as harlots or Harlems..
Now if the husband fails to provide for her in this way, then she was to be granted freedom, without payment. In other word were as mentioned before where her redemption could be bought by a kinsman, she would now be free to return to her family with no payment required.
"again your point shows god justified this,, is this family or human or moral values that you would teach your kids ???
Now with that said, this is not the case of slavery as many are making it out to be. Rather it is a form of arrange marriage. The kind that has been exhibited it our society not to long ago, in the time of our grandparents. If anything this passage is allowing arranged marriage. But I guess many will find evil where there is none because that is a far a their nose will allow them to see.
Stop trying to put words in gods mouth.. You again try to justify immorality and make it sound like somethings its not, you explination is simply wrong.
sMASH wrote:so, are u saying the devil is not real? the concept may have been modified over time, but there would be an origin somewhere. the messages in the bible would have originated somewhere and sometime as well. the actions of the people may stem from misinterpretation of the messages they follow, so don't judge the religion by the actions of the people; examine the source of the religion. the bible is at a disadvantage here because the words in it can not be really confidently as accurate to the original as some others, as there have been various modifications over time.
u are saying that everything that happens is only scientifically based. i say no, some things may not be. but even, because we cannot explain it, doesn't necessarily mean it is totally paranormal.
science shows us evolution. very reasonable, logical, believable; and in the words of gregory house- it fits.
two of the major religions, wait three, have words which say that man has been divinely created.
the scientific genealogy of man have been placed in the mechanism of evolution. but hear this, not all of the pieces have been found to make man fit the evolutionary process. there are still some major gaps, but still enough info to reasonably assume that man evolved.
i on the fence with that. because coming from the side of creationism, i don't see enough to say 100 % evolution. unfortunate thing is, because of the random process of fossil establishment, the exact lineage may never be able to be discovered.
the thing is, islam leaves enough room for evolution of every thing else, in my opinion. but it apparently distinguishes man's origin as being divine. but i say apparently because may be those words are figurative. i am not a scholar, but i should investigate it a little more. some how i get the impression that it may have signaled a major turning point in development, either physically, logically, sentience wise, or sumting. but me eh putting meh head on the block for dat.....yet.
so creationist believe creation, evolutionist believe evolution, i on the fence, but leaning towards a divinely inspired evolution; generally random, specifically designed.
and science, just like religion, as people get more understanding and information, they may rethink what they knew before, and develop. some scientists are just as egotistical and suborn, unwavering like any religious zealot.
oh yeah, islam says that god is in no form that man can comprehend, thus we cannot be created in his image.
dark_lord_tnt wrote: All I'll say for now is that Islam originated on the roots of Christianity,
MG Man wrote:dark_lord_tnt wrote: All I'll say for now is that Islam originated on the roots of Christianity,
people still in denial over this
MG Man wrote:
Muslims still in denial over this
dark_lord_tnt wrote:toyo682 wrote:“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. Ex 21:7-11 (NIV)
So I’ll begin with this passage that many seem to think allows sex slavery.
Now in verse 7 the Bible says clearly, “ If a man sells his daughter as a servant” some translations render it as being a slave. The Hebrew word here אָמָה (ʾā∙mā(h)) has several renderings, in its 55 occurrences; it translates as “handmaid” 22 times, “maidservant” 19 times, “maid” eight times, “bondwoman” four times, and “bondmaids” twice. 1 maid-servant, female slave, maid, handmaid, concubine. 1A of humility (fig.). This term was applied both to those who were literal slaves and to those who figuratively call themselves by this term as an expression of humility and submission.
Jeremiah 2:14 (A.V.), but not there found in the original. In Revelation 18:13 the word "slaves" is the rendering of a Greek word meaning "bodies." The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply "servant," "bondman," or "bondservant." Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of slavery You don't say...well we learn something new everyday day don't we..(Exodus 21:20,21,26,27; Leviticus 25:44-46; Joshua 9:6-27). And just for your knowledge , see those two funny looking things under ( אָמָה) this changes the meaning of the word. In the case of my passage quote its ( אַהּמּ) taken from the original untranslated (thora) Meaning Slave of the Body or Sex Slave
Female slaves were not treated as other slaves but rather they were to be treated differently. Often in biblical times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class. If a daughter who became a servant was not pleasing to her master she was to be redeemed by a near kinsman (Lev. 25:47-54) but never sold to foreigners (Ex. 21:8); she could also redeem herself.
What is your point ??? God Still condoned it. Is that the moral values you should have ?? Sell me your daughter and your wife, show me how christian you are.. She cannot redeem her self but hope for the negligence of her husband. And I guess you mised the part of the bible that states "If an unmarried woman fornicates she is to be stoned to death ???" and also your crap about foreigners "David to be King David was soled to Foreigners as a Slave by his brothers" stop speaking B.S. in your attempt of Justification. When and where was David sold as a slave by his brothers? If by chance you were referring to Joseph, this transaction took place before the mosaic law was implemented.
Within the context of this particular passage it is clear that it is not speaking about slavery in the sense that many believe. The context seems to lend itself more to an arranged marriage. This is clear by part b of verse 7, that states that she is not to go free as male servants/salves do. The law concerning slaves states that a male slave must be freed on the 7th year, however this was not so with females, why? The Bible ascribes to women the weaker role, in fact it calls them the weaker vessel. The women should have a covering, the man is both her physical and spiritual covering. In this sense she moves from one covering (her father) to her (Master/Husband, which I will show). This is why she is not to go free as a male servant/slave, if she does, she will be left without a covering.
That interpretation is utter nonsense , I wont even bother to respond read the above for why..what you wrote above does not make sense, so please feel free to reply.
Now we need to understand that in patriarchal society the husband was considered the master of the wife. Thus in this passage it when it refers the master it is actually talking about a husband in a sense (we will see this further in the passage). Now the passage goes on to say that if she does not please her master he must allow her to be redeemed. In fact in this passage He is forbidden from selling her to a foreigner, why? Because he has broken faith with her v.8. How does one break faith with a slave? It is clear as we move on that once again what is being described here is a type of martial relationship.
"There is now way is it written in that book you hold so dearly its suggested for that period alone,can you make this make some sense please, not that I am trying to correct your English but I am trying to understand your rants. And she wouldn't be brought by a foreigner in any case cause she was defiled",
Now verse 9 goes on to say that if he selects her for his son, and not himself, he is to grant her the rights of a daughter. It is quite obvious here that the Bible is not speaking of selecting her to be a slave as we think, but as an arranged wife for his son. Then the Bible goes on in verse 10-11 to show how the man is to treat her. It then goes on to says “if he marries another“, further proof that it is speaking about an arranged type of marriage. So if he takes a wife besides this one he is still obligated to treat her well, providing clothes, food and martial rights. In contrast to choosing her for his son, obligating him to grant her the rights of a daughter, if he takes her for himself, he has to grant her the rights of a wife.
Concubines are well respected , and what is actually meant by chosen for his son, is that in those day and in other cultures as well men were though about sex from a very young age, she was selected as a concubine for his son.. often referred to as harlots or Harlems.. [color=#FF8000]So this harlots as you call her, why was she supposed to be granted the rights of a daughter?
[/color]
Now if the husband fails to provide for her in this way, then she was to be granted freedom, without payment. In other words, were as mentioned before where her redemption could be bought by a kinsman, she would now be free to return to her family with no payment required.
"again your point shows god justified this,, is this family or human or moral values that you would teach your kids ???What is this that God has justified, sex slavery, your interpretation does not lend itself to the context. What you are saying is that God approve of sex slaves and in the same breath tried to give them rights.
Now with that said, this is not the case of slavery as many are making it out to be. Rather it is a form of arrange marriage. The kind that has been exhibited it our society not to long ago, in the time of our grandparents. If anything this passage is allowing arranged marriage. But I guess many will find evil where there is none because that is a far a their nose will allow them to see.
Stop trying to put words in gods mouth.. You again try to justify immorality and make it sound like somethings its not, you explination is simply wrong.Why because it disagrees with yours. What words have I put in God's mouth? I would not be as foolish as you to do so...
I assure you these arguments may work for people who are unaware on the actual writings, the actual text and the translation of it least they lack knowledge in that. It wont work by someone who speaks the language or actually has experience in its translation.
.dark_lord_tnt wrote:Yes I meant Joseph I apologize..
The word used suggested sex Slave,,So whose sex slave was Joseph?
You teach your kinds that women are sub servant ???that was the culture then, are you trying to translate using 21st century norms? Are you saying it was wrong then because it is wrong now? It seems that you are not even familiar with the progression in scripture. We'll get to that later have no fear.
האנשים שלו שמשתמשים בפירושים לא מתאימים של התנ"ך
להצדיק חלקים הם לא אוהב אתה לא יכול להפוך מה ש לא חשוב כמה אתה מנסה
זה ברור מה שנאמר אולי בכמה עריכות שזה יערך יותר לעניו הצרכים שלך אבל הכתבים המקוריים שימרו ואיבטחו יכולים מעולם לא להיות משונים.Is this supposed to prove something or prove you can copy and paste Hebrew?
translation..
Its people that use improper interpretations of the bible,once you know...
To justify parts they do not like, you cannot change what is no matter how much you try.There are many points in the passage you missed, first off it says in v.8 if her master is not is not please...for he has broken faith with her. The question one has to ask is how does a master break faith with a slave? Then it says if chosen for the son she is to be granted the rights of a daughter. So are you saying that a sex slave and not a wife is to be granted this right. Further more it says if she is chosen for the master, she is to be treated as a wife, and not a rag. It is right there. You sir are trying to ignore this because you are only looking to discredit the Bible. Once we get over this hurdle I will deal with the rest of the passage you have posted, many of which you have taken out of context. Even your translation of the word sex slave as you say is not consistent with what is taking place in the passage.
It is clear what as being said.If only it was clearly understood... Maybe in a few revisions it will be edited more to meek your needs. But the original writings preserved and secured can never be changed.No way!!!!!
but God gave instructions and guidelines on owning slaves; for man to decide that an act that God himself gave direct guidance for, suddenly was no longer "socially acceptable", is in essence defiance against God's word, isn't it? Supposing man also decided in a couple decades it was socially unacceptable to worship Jesus? Where do we draw the line for what to hold fast to in the bible and what to let go based on the whim and fancy of man? Who says where to draw the line?QG wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ why would a perfect bible make it permissible to kill your slave though?
could it be that revision is needed in the bible as time progresses or do you agree that it is more important to keep the way of the bible rather than keeping the modern morality we know today i.e. that slavery is a terrible act against humanity.
I'd like to get megadoc1, toyo, sparky and bluefete's input on this as well
I wish I had the correct answer to your question, but I don't. But I can say this...slavery days are over, we live in a more civilized nation where there is law/acts that ensures equality among us all.
Plus there are so many different versions of the Bible out there
because different species evolve in different ways. Not all apes evolved into gorillas either.QG wrote:If man really did came from Apes as what you are saying, then God lied to us all?!
Because God said that he made man in his own image!
Evolution is a change! If man really did evolve from monkey, tell me why there are monkeys still existing on earth????
toyo682 wrote:dark_lord_tnt wrote:Yes I meant Joseph I apologize..
The word used suggested sex Slave,,So whose sex slave was Joseph?
You teach your kinds that women are sub servant ???that was the culture then, are you trying to translate using 21st century norms? Are you saying it was wrong then because it is wrong now? It seems that you are not even familiar with the progression in scripture. We'll get to that later have no fear.
האנשים שלו שמשתמשים בפירושים לא מתאימים של התנ"ך
להצדיק חלקים הם לא אוהב אתה לא יכול להפוך מה ש לא חשוב כמה אתה מנסה
זה ברור מה שנאמר אולי בכמה עריכות שזה יערך יותר לעניו הצרכים שלך אבל הכתבים המקוריים שימרו ואיבטחו יכולים מעולם לא להיות משונים.Is this supposed to prove something or prove you can copy and paste Hebrew?
translation..
Its people that use improper interpretations of the bible,once you know...
To justify parts they do not like, you cannot change what is no matter how much you try.There are many points in the passage you missed, first off it says in v.8 if her master is not is not please...for he has broken faith with her. The question one has to ask is how does a master break faith with a slave? Then it says if chosen for the son she is to be granted the rights of a daughter. So are you saying that a sex slave and not a wife is to be granted this right. Further more it says if she is chosen for the master, she is to be treated as a wife, and not a rag. It is right there. You sir are trying to ignore this because you are only looking to discredit the Bible. Once we get over this hurdle I will deal with the rest of the passage you have posted, many of which you have taken out of context. Even your translation of the word sex slave as you say is not consistent with what is taking place in the passage.
It is clear what as being said.If only it was clearly understood... Maybe in a few revisions it will be edited more to meek your needs. But the original writings preserved and secured can never be changed.No way!!!!!
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:but God gave instructions and guidelines on owning slaves; for man to decide that an act that God himself gave direct guidance for, suddenly was no longer "socially acceptable", is in essence defiance against God's word, isn't it? Supposing man also decided in a couple decades it was socially unacceptable to worship Jesus? Where do we draw the line for what to hold fast to in the bible and what to let go based on the whim and fancy of man? Who says where to draw the line?QG wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ why would a perfect bible make it permissible to kill your slave though?
could it be that revision is needed in the bible as time progresses or do you agree that it is more important to keep the way of the bible rather than keeping the modern morality we know today i.e. that slavery is a terrible act against humanity.
I'd like to get megadoc1, toyo, sparky and bluefete's input on this as well
I wish I had the correct answer to your question, but I don't. But I can say this...slavery days are over, we live in a more civilized nation where there is law/acts that ensures equality among us all.
Plus there are so many different versions of the Bible out therebecause different species evolve in different ways. Not all apes evolved into gorillas either.QG wrote:If man really did came from Apes as what you are saying, then God lied to us all?!
Because God said that he made man in his own image!
Evolution is a change! If man really did evolve from monkey, tell me why there are monkeys still existing on earth????
there is a TON of real evidence pointing to the evolution of humans from apes, but there is little, if any, real evidence of the first man being created as an adult from dirt and woman being created from one of his ribs, except the mention of it in Abrahamic holy books which were written thousands of years before we knew how to do proper scientific research into the origin of species.
dark_lord_tnt wrote:
Firstly the word used to suggest joseph was a slave is עבד
the entire line reads ויוסף הוחלף על ידי האחים כ/כפי שעבד
And Joseph was traded by his kins as a slave.
I never question whether Joseph was a slave, I asked whose sex slave was he? what does it have to do with Ex 21?
And for your information here is the original passage in hebrewwhich passage is this in Hebrew, because you seem to be all over the place. And seem to be using a different Hebrew than the rest of the world.
אם איש מוכר את הילדה שלו כ/כפי שעבד, היא לא יכולה להיות קובעת חינם כ/כפי שמשרתים זכר עושים. אם האומן שלה לא משומח איתה, היא יכולה להיות מגורשת או ענשה כ/כפי שהוא חושב מתאים לשהיא התכונה שלו. היא לא יכולה להיות נמכרת פעם שהיא ליכלכה. אם הוא בוחר אותה ללימודי הילד שלו, היא לא יכולה להופיע החובות של משרת. אם הוא מתחתן הוא לא יכול יותר להיות איתה, היא חייבת להיות את אקסהילאד לשהיא יכולה לקלקל את הבית.
from the quran
و رجل يبيع ابنته باعتباره عبدا قالت انها لا تستطيع أن تحدد الخدمة الرجال. وقالت سيدة إذا ليست راضية وقالت إنها يمكن أن يعيش في المنفى أو معاقبتهم حسبما يراه على انها ملكه. وقالت انها لا يمكن بيعها مرة أخرى وقالت يتنجسوا. واذا كان يختار لها ابنه وتعاليمه, وقالت انها لا تقوم بواجباتها على الخادم. إذا تزوج انه لم يعد بالإمكان معها فانها يجب نها لا يمكن بيعها وباستطاعتها أن يفسد على المنزل. وقالت انها لا تملك العقارات, ولا يمكن أن يكون مجانا كما يفعل من إسرائيل.
If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she cannot be set free as male servants do. If her master is not pleased with her she can be exiled or punished as he sees fit for she is his property. She cannot be sold once she defiled. If he selects her for his son's teachings, she cannot perform the duties of a servant. If he marries he can no longer be with her she must be exhiled for she can spoil the house. She cannot own property and cannot be of the congrenation of Isreal.
Thats your unrevised edition.. I do not have such an edition, care to share where I may find one? 靠你
thanks QGQG wrote:I think that's where the New Testament comes in Duane 3NE 2NR. New Testament is when Jesus came to earth and the old Testament is before the coming of Christ!
We now follow the new since Jesus has now set a new path for us (thus breaking the old ten commandments) and creating a new commandment.
And just to highlight a simple commandment from Jesus...."John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
And I agree with your statements made above that I have highlighted!
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:thanks QGQG wrote:I think that's where the New Testament comes in Duane 3NE 2NR. New Testament is when Jesus came to earth and the old Testament is before the coming of Christ!
We now follow the new since Jesus has now set a new path for us (thus breaking the old ten commandments) and creating a new commandment.
And just to highlight a simple commandment from Jesus...."John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
And I agree with your statements made above that I have highlighted!
but why include the old stuff if there are new rules and the old ones don't apply?
) but because WE CARE FOR OUR FELLOW MAN... so you don't lust after a woman "because it's wrong", but because she is someone's sister... you don't steal "because it's wrong", but because you wouldn't want someone else to do that to you...Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:but God gave instructions and guidelines on owning slaves; for man to decide that an act that God himself gave direct guidance for, suddenly was no longer "socially acceptable", is in essence defiance against God's word, isn't it? Supposing man also decided in a couple decades it was socially unacceptable to worship Jesus? Where do we draw the line for what to hold fast to in the bible and what to let go based on the whim and fancy of man? Who says where to draw the line?QG wrote:I wish I had the correct answer to your question, but I don't. But I can say this...slavery days are over, we live in a more civilized nation where there is law/acts that ensures equality among us all.
Plus there are so many different versions of the Bible out there
toyo682 wrote:dark_lord_tnt wrote:Maybe in a few revisions it will be edited more to meek your needs. But the original writings preserved and secured can never be changed.No way!!!!!
) ... and these books will be accepted as such;d spike wrote:Christians don't think that Jesus broke or removed the ten commandments...
He refined it, showing us the UNDERLYING meaning, which is love of each other.
We are expected to follow the ten commandments, but we must go further... to obey them, not in blind obedience to the Law (a la Judge Dredd
- and when asked why, all they can fall back on is the earlier "cause that's wrong!" or "God loves us, an' I don't want to disappoint him..." The danger at this point is that because it is based on extremes, it is very easy to disillusion/unbalance the individual, who, most likely is unable to deal with upsets as yet, and will discard everything in frustration... While this is an extremely important stage, it is but a stage... and unfortunately, too many folks think this is the final stage... and stay there, never developing further... never maturing...Hopefully, one day, people will be mature enough to do two things properly at the same time:
1.recognize that many parts of the Old Testament were written by men to show how loved by God they thought they were (and thus their actions were justified) and these writings were accepted because of their "historical value" (and value as "justification machinery"
2.appreciate and apply the positive values that are existent in these and other scriptures - for THIS is the reason why they are (or should be) held in such high esteem.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:thanks QGQG wrote:I think that's where the New Testament comes in Duane 3NE 2NR. New Testament is when Jesus came to earth and the old Testament is before the coming of Christ!
We now follow the new since Jesus has now set a new path for us (thus breaking the old ten commandments) and creating a new commandment.
And just to highlight a simple commandment from Jesus...."John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
And I agree with your statements made above that I have highlighted!
but why include the old stuff if there are new rules and the old ones don't apply?
dark_lord_tnt wrote:After the first account of creation in genesis we see a second account. Scholars (biblical) say that this was a necessary by the author to give a greater explanation of what happened.
dark_lord_tnt wrote: Deeper study of this revealed in the tora scrolls genesis was written by 2 different authors.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: matr1x and 92 guests
