Gargamel:

What I said was: " a betrothed girl was considered already married".

THAT'S NOT AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION! If betrothal = marriage at this time, then you are saying nonsense: "a married girl was considered already married."

1. ALL the translations refer to the betrothed as "wife."

Merely presumptive, and you have yet to reply.

2. The betrothal could only be broken by a bill of divorcement.

The betrothal was a covenant, was it not? Then a bill is just as usable to break it -- and no more makes it marriage than a traffic ticket for speeding is also a traffic ticket for littering.

ARE YOU EVER GOING TO DIG OUT ANY REAL EVIDENCE FOR THIS OR WHAT?

If you wonder why there were two stages--go back and read the Jewish Encyclopedia

Dodgeball. I'm not asking why there are two stages; I am asking why both can be called marriage if there ARE two stages. Cut the dodging.

And where is your evidence? WHERE?

"I asked you first." And I also asked: What is the word used for "wife" here? Well?

I did not pay Miller a dime for his comment.

Free prostitution! That's even WORSE! You should get a degree worth more than toilet paper to begin with. From an accredited school.

YOur linguisitic naivette is showing again. Words seldom if ever ALWAYS mean only one thing

You obviously know I have you backed into a corner. Why not answer the questions for all the nice people?

1) What word is used there for "wife"?
2) Does it mean "wife" everywhere? Why or why not?

Looks like you're going to get another ergon spanking....

Well I fail to see what Deut. 22:8-9 has to do with this subject but I assume that you are saying that letting the man live after violating a slave girl is an act of mercy since no one else would want to marry "damaged goods."

Wow, he "failed to see" but he figured it out anyway! Must be that Bob Jones Magick! Yes, I did make a typo. 22:28-9.

However, one could argue that the man who had sex with a betrothed free woman (who cried for help) should be allowed to live, too, since the free woman also
Became "damaged goods." Who would marry her?

Oops! This is where you lose your shirt, Bubby.

1) Was the slave girl able to help what happened to her?
2) Was the free woman in the example able to help what happened to her?
3) Why, in each case, were they not able to help it?
4) Most important: What is the difference in social status and social options for each woman?

GET THE PICTURE? Or do I need to spell it out even MORE detail?

Since all the sources and all the evidence agrees with me, I would expect that you need to produce some contrary evidence

In other words, surrender critical analysis and thinking? Argue by authority like you do, Hypocrite? SORRY! This is not Bob Jones U and this is not your Ph D defense. Either deal in arguments or get out of the kitchen.

Yesterday @ 04:28 PM post located here
jpholding:

What I said was: " a betrothed girl was considered already married".

THAT'S NOT AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION! If betrothal = marriage at this time, then you are saying nonsense: "a married girl was considered already married."

Take the question to your good buddy Glenn Miller, maybe he can help you on it. He said:


"The word bet_uÆlaÆ may designate a virgin, but when it does the explanatory phrase 'and a man had not known her' is often added (cf. Gn.24:16). The word may also designate a betrothed virgin (cf. Dt.22:23ff.). In this latter case the virgin is known as the wife (ÕisûsûaÆ ) of the man, and he as her
husband (Õisû)."

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

And you are supposed to be the expert on ANE society? What I said was that "a betrothed girl was considered already married." This is true as it relates to the law. This has been shown to you via the translations, via the Jewish encyclopedias, and even via your good buddy Glenn Miller who has demonstrated that he at least has a measure of scholarship.

You must have missed this article, since you made no comment on it.

This is from the article on "betrothal" in Jewishencyclopedia.com:

"The root ("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract ("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of thepassages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce."

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view....earch=betrothal

1. ALL the translations refer to the betrothed as "wife."

Merely presumptive, and you have yet to reply.

This is hilarious. ALL the translations agree with me and I am supposed to tell you why they are not presumptive? Do you ever have any burden of proof? ROFL. How about you showing why YOU are right (even though you know NO HEBREW) and ALL the translations are wrong? Talk about being presumptive?

2. The betrothal could only be broken by a bill of divorcement.

The betrothal was a covenant, was it not? Then a bill is just as usable to break it -- and no more makes it marriage than a traffic ticket for speeding is also a traffic ticket for littering.

Why was it called then a BILL OF DIVORCEMENT if it was not designed to dissolve a marriage? ROFL

If you wonder why there were two stages--go back and read the Jewish Encyclopedia

Dodgeball. I'm not asking why there are two stages; I am asking why both can be called marriage if there ARE two stages. Cut the dodging.

Ask the Jews. Actually you should already know this since you are the EXPERT on ANE practices! ROFL

And where is your evidence? WHERE?

"I asked you first." And I also asked: What is the word used for "wife" here? Well?

You are a hoot, you know it. "I asked you first" sounds like a five year old.

Since you say that ALL the translations are wrong in translating this word as "wife". I am sure you must know have done an exhaustive research on the word (probably from Stong's concordance--ROFL) and can prove to us why ALL the translations are wrong and Mr. Holding is right. Go ahead. This should be interesting.

I did not pay Miller a dime for his comment.

Free prostitution! That's even WORSE!

I thought Miller was your bud? You are accusing him of prostitution? Free prostitution? I wonder if he enjoys having those kinds of terms applied to him?

Well I fail to see what Deut. 22:8-9 has to do with this subject but I assume that you are saying that letting the man live after violating a slave girl is an act of mercy since no one else would want to marry "damaged goods."

Wow, he "failed to see" but he figured it out anyway! Must be that Bob Jones Magick! Yes, I did make a typo. 22:28-9.

another mistake huh? You are racking em up now.

However, one could argue that the man who had sex with a betrothed free woman (who cried for help) should be allowed to live, too, since the free woman also
Became "damaged goods." Who would marry her?

Oops! This is where you lose your shirt, Bubby.

1) Was the slave girl able to help what happened to her?
2) Was the free woman in the example able to help what happened to her?
3) Why, in each case, were they not able to help it?
4) Most important: What is the difference in social status and social options for each woman?

GET THE PICTURE? Or do I need to spell it out even MORE detail?

You probably do as it does not change the basic principle, ie. the punishment is not as severe because the girl is not free, as outlined here in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

*The Anchor Bible Dictionary,* volume 1, page 83,
article: "adultery":

"According to Leviticus 19:20, the betrothed (neherepet),
literally assigned slave girl and her lover are not executed because she "has not yet been freed," i.e. the regular penalty for adultery does not apply because she is still a slave and not because her 'assignment'/betrothal is anything less than marriage (Milgrom 1977:44-45): in the Bible, as in the ancient
Near East in general, a slave girl is not a legal person and her
sexual violation is treated as a transgression of her owner's property for which he would seek compensation, not prosecution (Finkelstein 1966:360)."

I guess they are being presumptive too? ROFL

Still time to salvage a little bit of respect and admit your error like you did on the other thread. People will understand. No one is perfect, not even JP Holding.

Take the question to your good buddy Glenn Miller, maybe he can help you on it.

In other words, you can't answer or won't. Excellent.

What I said was that "a betrothed girl was considered already married." This is true as it relates to the law.

What? WHAT? Are you now reversing yourself and qualifying your original statement? So now "betrothed" only means "married" in SOME ways? Can you please make up your mind and get back to us when you do?

You must have missed this article, since you made no comment on it.

I did make a comment. I said it was making the same presumption.

This is hilarious. ALL the translations agree with me and I am supposed to tell you why they are not presumptive?

Yes. Why? Wasn't critical thinking and analysis part of the Bob Jones curriculum? So you swallow whole what you're told? I thought that was "argument from authority", Gargamel....

How about you showing why YOU are right

I am. You won't answer my question about the word used. Why not try it this way:

1) What is the Hebrew word for WIFE?
2) What is the Hebrew word for FIANCEE?
3) What is the Hebrew word for WOMAN?

Do you have the guts to answer yet?

Why was it called then a BILL OF DIVORCEMENT if it was not designed to dissolve a marriage?

Does it matter? Show where such a bill is used in reference to a betrothed person in the OT.

Ask the Jews.

In other words, you can't answer. As usual. Just admit you have no answer and save yourself decades of painful embarassment and the huge zit of being reamed by me further from the face of your existence.

You are a hoot, you know it. "I asked you first" sounds like a five year old.

You did after all say something about tailoring to an audience....

I am sure you must know have done an exhaustive research on the word

Yep. Now answer my questions.

I thought Miller was your bud? You are accusing him of prostitution?

What can I say to you, but: Hi, John.

You probably do as it does not change the basic principle, ie. the punishment is not as severe because the girl is not free, as outlined here in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

I do, no surprise. And you couldn't answer my question. Your cite of the dictionary came close, though. Care to try some more?

I guess they are being presumptive too?

Perhaps a little anachronistic. Their concept of "property" in thne ANE contradicts what other commentators say; and their view of women in the OT is off. Since you did seem to enjoy your fling with Miller here's some more:

Pushback....
...."Weren't women considered property in the OT, like cows or something? Didn't the Law say a father could even SELL his daughter?!!"

[Note: This is a simple summary of the detailed data in the syllabus <femalex.html>. Refer there for sources/discussion. Updated: 01/02/97]

This is a very common question, and frankly, one I find amazing. It shows up in many, many Christian and non-Christian writings (even scholarly pieces!). Yet the evidence AGAINST this assertion is quite definitive.
The normal reason that people assume this, is that the OT makes a statement that 'slaves' are property (Lev 25.45f):
You 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. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
And then they use the "selling a daughter" passage in Lev 21:7:
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
So, I guess they conclude that women were considered property thereby. [Also, I have heard it mentioned that women were 'deeded' along with land, as in the case of Naomi and Ruth, but the fact that Naomi had to 'sell the land' indicates that this conclusion is not that easy to reach.]
And the problem is...
First, the "property" passage ONLY APPLIES TO NON-ISRAELITES (see the end of the passage). Any buying and selling of Hebrew persons was more of an indentured servant relationship, that could only last for 6 years (cf. Ex 21.2: "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."). These "servants" are NEVER called "property" in the OT.
Secondly, a man could ALSO sell his son (Neh 5.5: Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery.) and sell HIMSELF (Lev 25.39: "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.).
What this obviously means is that this 'selling' relationship HAD NOTHING TO DO with gender! [Other than the possible conclusion we might draw from the fact that the man is nowhere allowed to sell his WIFE! (grin)...]
Thirdly, it should be noted that the passage used in the objection (the 'selling a daughter' one) is actually a 'protection passage' for the woman--there are severe abuse-restrictions placed on THAT transaction, that do NOT occur in the descriptions of selling sons or self. God built some protection clauses in for His daughters.
Fourthly, who ever heard of "property OWNING property"?!
Yet women in the OT...
Gave their personal belongings as offerings (Ex 35.22,29)
Made vows (often involving possessions) (Num 30.9)
They were required to make restitution for crimes (Num 5.6)
Unmarried daughters could inherit property (Num 27.1-7; Elephantine papyri, Job 42.13)
Female servants could buy their own freedom (Lev 27.1ff)
Receive revenues from land (2 kgs 8)
Possess nice homes (Mic 2.8)
Sell property (Ruth 4.9)
Sounds more like they were 'own-ers' than 'own-ees' to me!
Finally, notice that a woman could sell HERSELF--indicating that she was NOT someone else's property.
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.
The data above seems clear: (1) "selling" and "property" passages had no gender-specific elements; and (2) the data of the OT is quite clear that women were NOT property, as illustrated by their ability to wield property themselves.
Anyway, let's try again with my questions. Can you answer them or not? Still time to salvage a little bit of respect and admit your ignorance like you never do on any the other thread. People will understand. No one is perfect, especially not Gargamel.

Yesterday @ 06:57 PM post located here
jpholding:

Take the question to your good buddy Glenn Miller, maybe he can help you on it.

In other words, you can't answer or won't. Excellent.

Why should I when EVERYONE agrees with me and NOONE agrees with you--not even your good buddy, Glenn Miller. We haven't even heard from your most loyal defender, Dee Dee. Could it be that everyone has forsaken poor JPH?

What I said was that &quot;a betrothed girl was considered already married.&quot; This is true as it relates to the law.

What? WHAT? Are you now reversing yourself and qualifying your original statement? So now &quot;betrothed&quot; only means &quot;married&quot; in SOME ways? Can you please make up your mind and get back to us when you do?

Here are my exact words from post #185: The point is that a betrothed girl was considered already married and stoning was the punishment (if the Jews were free to enact it). Deut. 22:23-24


I have not reversed a thing, my point all along was that she was "considered married" as it relates to the law.

This is the point you have denied and on which you are WRONG.

You must have missed this article, since you made no comment on it.

I did make a comment. I said it was making the same presumption.

Everyone who disagrees with you is presumptious? Nice debating technique. Why don't you just say they are lying? ROFL

This is hilarious. ALL the translations agree with me and I am supposed to tell you why they are not presumptive?

Yes. Why? Wasn't critical thinking and analysis part of the Bob Jones curriculum? So you swallow whole what you're told? I thought that was &quot;argument from authority&quot;, Gargamel....

Maybe if there was ONE that agreed with you, I would be concerned but since there is NOT, why worry?

How about you showing why YOU are right

I am. You won't answer my question about the word used. Why not try it this way:

1) What is the Hebrew word for WIFE?
2) What is the Hebrew word for FIANCEE?
3) What is the Hebrew word for WOMAN?

Do you have the guts to answer yet?

Why don't you tell us, Mr. Scholar (who knows none of the original languages, but does have a Strong's Concordance). ROFL

Why was it called then a BILL OF DIVORCEMENT if it was not designed to dissolve a marriage?

Does it matter?

Why of course it matters. That is the whole point of our discussion.

Show where such a bill is used in reference to a betrothed person in the OT.

1. I have shown where the "betrothed" is called a wife in the OT.
2. I have shown where the Jewishencyclopedia says that betrothal is considered as marriage and can only be broken by a bill of divorcement.
3. I have shown where Joseph was mulling over this possibility of a bill of divorcement with his betrothed wife--Mary.

Now if you want to contravene this, you will need to show some evidence instead of crying for more.

Ask the Jews.

In other words, you can't answer.

I have answered and I have cited Jewish authorities. You just refuse to hear.

I am sure you must know have done an exhaustive research on the word

Yep. Now answer my questions.

good, then present your evidence Mr. Scholar (who knows none of the original languages but does have a Strong's concordance) ROFL

You probably do as it does not change the basic principle, ie. the punishment is not as severe because the girl is not free, as outlined here in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

I do, no surprise. And you couldn't answer my question. Your cite of the dictionary came close, though. Care to try some more?

Nope, I think that does it quite nicely.

Concerning the Anchor Bible,

I guess they are being presumptive too?

Perhaps a little anachronistic. Their concept of &quot;property&quot; in thne ANE contradicts what other commentators say; and their view of women in the OT is off.

Then why don't you cite the contrary evidence from commentators, etc! instead of just claiming it exists?

Since you did seem to enjoy your fling with Miller here's some more:

Since Miller is just a prostitute according to you, why should I care what he says? Why don't you try quoting someone who has actually published something? That might give you a tad more credibility.

The point remains you are DEAD WRONG on the betrothal matter and you might as well admit it. Unless of course you want to keep insisting that everyone else is presumptive. ROFL

Why should I when EVERYONE agrees with me and NOONE agrees with you


Yes, I suppose you should continue to argue from authority, huh? What immense hypocrisy!

Here are my exact words from post #185: The point is that a betrothed girl was considered already married and stoning was the punishment (if the Jews were free to enact it). Deut. 22:23-24

Exactly. No qualification of "as it relates to the law"; you merely add this now because you are reversing yourself. So have you now settled on this new position for good and may we proceed?

Everyone who disagrees with you is presumptious?

Yet another lie/misrepresentation. "Everyone" is said nowhere. Nice debating technique, telling falsehoods about what an opponent says. Typical of you, though.

Why don't you tell us, Mr. Scholar

As predicted, you refuse to answer the question. Why? Are you scared?

3. I have shown where Joseph was mulling over this possibility of a bill of divorcement with his betrothed wife--Mary.

You have "shown" an example 1400 years too late. Obviously you have no example contempoary with the Pentateuch's traditional date, or you would have brought it up by now. You will need to show evidence instead of crying because you have none.

Nope, I think that does it quite nicely.

Obviously, you can't answer, yet again. Why not? Scared?

I'll give you a hint:

The slave girl was essentially in the same 'condition' as the woman who was raped and could not help herself.

Try it now. You may learn something about the social sciences, Zeus forbid.

Then why don't you cite the contrary evidence from commentators, etc! instead of just claiming it exists?

We've been through it already -- the whole issue of YHWH being the real owner of things. Forget that?

Why don't you try quoting someone who has actually published something?

Well, that would sure not be you. So you can't answer his arguments?

No surprise there...

FormerFundy:
I apologize if I offended you. That was not my intention.

It wasn't your intention??? You wrote: "Jezz, I guess I was mistaken. I thought that you were above this type of argumentation." What was your intention in writing this, if not to offend??? It certainly contributes no logical or evidential weight to your argument. You're not trying to tell me that the implication that I was using a "low form of argumentation" was a complimentary remark?

My problem is not with the word "slave" but with what it means.

And it is what the word "slave" means in this context which is exactly the point at issue here. I claim that it does not mean "own" in the way that you claim that it does.

According to dictionary.com, it means: "One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household."

Correct me if I am wrong, but dictionary.com describes modern, 20th/21st century English meaning, doesn't it? One that carries with it the connotations of 19th century slavery in America? Isn't it therefore a little bit inappropriate to be using such a source to define exactly what slavery was like in other cultures?

Because I think this is a major sticking point (one that recurs throughout your post), I'm going to spend a bit of time elaborating here, and then skip the bits later in your post where I would be repeating myself.

What is the essential nature of slavery? Well, "essential", by definition, means that if you took it away, it would no longer be meaningful to call it slavery under any circumstances.

In the most generic sense, a master-slave relationship is one where the slave has some obligation to act according to the wishes of the master. If the slave had no obligation to do the wishes of the master, then it no longer makes sense to call such an arrangement "slavery". Hence, obligation is the essential nature of slavery.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, I am obligated to my bank, to my employer, etc - they have some control over what I can and cannot do in my life. And so I am, in this sense, "owned" by my bank and by my employer - I am a slave to them. We all have this sort of obligation every day. You have made it clear that you find nothing fundamentally wrong with this.

So if we agree that there is nothing wrong with obligation per se, then the question that needs to be asked is not "Is it wrong for someone else to control what I can and cannot do?" but "to what extent is it permissible for them to control me?" Clearly, there are some rights that it is ok for one person to exercise over another (eg, it is ok for a lender to insist that the borrower repays them, or it is ok for an employer to insist that the worker works acceptably for the pay that they receive). However, there are some rights that are not in general ok for one person to exercise over another - eg, killing them.

So your foundational statement "It is inhumane for one human being to own another" is too vague and equivocal to be of any real use. "Ownership" can imply a variety of different types of obligation, depending on the context, that can lie anywhere in-between the extremes of voluntary indebtedness (eg, bank loans) and pure chattel (eg, 19th century slavery). What you really need to do if you want to prove your case is two things:

1. Instead of simply saying "it is wrong to own another human being", you need to say where on this spectrum the cut-off is between acceptable and unacceptable ownership, and realise that any such cut-off is also going to be rather fuzzy and relative to other
2. Having established the cut-off point, evaluate Biblical slavery and prove that it is on the "wrong" end of the cut-off.

You also need to acknowledge that any such cut-off will be fuzzy, and also will depend on relative conditions within the society. For example, it seems a bit silly to complain about the conditions of slaves when they are superior to those of free people in the same society.

That has nothing to do with it. The fact is I thought just like you for many years. Refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the Bible might be wrong on something. Defend it at all costs. Eventually I came to realize I was committing intellectual suicide in doing so.

A rather ironic statement, that one...

I would imagine there were probably SOME prisoners in Saddam Hussein's prisons who were treated with a degree of respect. Does that mean that the world should not condemn Saddam Hussein's prison system?

Yes!!! It absolutely means that the world should not condemn Saddam Hussein's prison system as a whole. Are you suggesting that Saddam should have abolished prisons altogether??? Doesn't every semi-developed nation in the world have some sort of prison system??? Clearly, the issue here is not that Saddam had prisons, but that some of the prisoners in some of his prisons weren't treated as they should be. Again, it is the abuses that should be condemned, not the concept itself.

But was any of it [Roman slavery] GOOD?

Yes, some of it was good. It afforded an opportunity for the poor (and even some of the not-so-poor) to gain financial security, a roof over their head, food in their mouths, and a means to climb the social ladder - more than many free people could hope for.

If it was, then why shouldn't we practice it today?

In many ways, we do practice the equivalents today.

Why wasn't there just a reform of 19th century American slavery rather than an abolition of it?

Because 19th century American slavery was essentially racist and founded on the idea that black people deserved to be slaves by virtue of their race. Take this element out of American slavery, and there is nothing much left of it. As you point out though, even in American slavery there were some slaves who didn't want to leave their masters - do you still condemn slavery in those cases?

Question: Can you provide me with ONE instance in which Paul condemned the ownership of slaves in the 1st century? I didn't think so. Now if he never condemend it and history tells us the majority of slaves came through kidnapping, then what else is one supposed to deduce?

Several points to raise here.

Firstly, I'd like to know what your reference is that said that kidnapping was the major way that people became slaves. You haven't produced one. Perhaps you are referring to the following quote that Miller gave from Bradley: "Piracy within the sphere of Roman influence, finally, must be acknowledged as a major means of generating new slaves."? If so, you've misread it - it says "a major means", not "the major means". It would only have to be (say) 15-20% to be considered a major source of new slaves.

Secondly, it is still an argument from silence. I will address this point later.

Thirdly (a point that I mentioned last time), Paul was a Jew - and one well versed in the Torah at that. The Torah specifies the death penalty for kidnapping - indicating that this was considered to be a very serious crime. To say that Paul approved of kidnapping is equivalent to saying that he approved of adultery, murder or blasphemy. It's theoretically possible that Paul simply ignored this law, but you'll need to do a lot better than this very weak argument from silence to prove that this is the case. In the meantime, the most likely explanation is that Paul did think that kidnapping was wrong.

Finally (again a point that I mentioned last time), the early Christians made it their business to free slaves who were kidnapped. If Paul condoned kidnapping, how do you explain the fact that the Christians not long after decided that it was bad?

The first two points establish the weakness of your argument - it relies on a faulty premise (ie that the majority of slaves became so through kidnapping) and it uses a logical fallacy (argument from insignificant silence). The last two points constitute positive evidence for my case (and against yours). Paul was both an early Christian and a Jew, and we have seen that both Jewish law (point 3) and early Christian practice (point 4) held that kidnapping was evil. Thus you somehow have to prove that Paul's personal belief was different to both the religion he was raised in and the religion he helped to found. You'll need to do substantially better than your argument from silence to do so. And if you can't, then I demand that you retract your slander against Paul.

You did not appreciate it when people accused you of condoning racism due to your silence on BJU's policies (and rightly so). It is only fair that you extend Paul the same courtesy.

I do not see any distinctions made between "bad slavery" and "not so bad slavery" in the NT.

Then you're either not looking very hard, or deliberately ignoring the information I keep giving you. Any time Paul addresses a Christian slave owner, he exhorts the owner to treat his slaves as fellow brothers in Christ. Clearly, he is making a distinction between how a Christian slave owner should behave (ie, good slavery), and how he shouldn't (bad slavery).

Paul tells all slaves to be obedient to their Masters. He makes no distinction. He does not say, if you were kidnapped and taken away from your homeland, then it is okay to try to escape.

That's extremely good advice, if you ask me. Trying to escape would probably have you winding up dead. On the other hand, remaining in obedient service acts as a good witness for Christ - even more so if the master is ruthless and undeserving of their slaves' respect. There is no more powerful Christian witness than to show mercy to one undeserving.

But I fail to see how telling slaves to be obedient to their masters means that Paul condones slavery. I agree wholeheartedly with Paul's advice, and if I ever found myself in the unfortunate position of being made a slave against my will and I was unable to secure my freedom, I would like to think that I would heed this advice. But you would be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion if you took this to mean that I thought such slavery was a good thing.

He said: "Don't let it trouble you" that you are a slave? If you can get your freedom, then do so."

This is a condemnation of slavery. Hardly.

Oh come on! "If you can get your freedom, then do so."

Question: does this statement indicated Paul think it is a good thing or a bad thing for slaves to be free? If "good", doesn't that constitute a statement against slavery in general? How do you explain Paul making this statement if, as you are trying to claim, Paul actually condoned slavery in all its forms?

Of course it is condoning it. It is not condemning it. In a different thread, I was castigated for not speaking out against the BJU interracial dating policy when I was a student there. Now here you have Paul not speaking against slavery and thats okay.

And in that thread you rightly objected to your silence on the dating policy being interpreted as tacit approval (which, as I recall, was never meant as a serious criticism anyway, but rather an attempt to show your hypocrisy). Why not extend the same courtesy to Paul? Even more so, given that he said plenty that was never written down, and most likely wrote stuff that we lost, thus leaving us with a number of alternative explanations:

1. A full discussion of slavery as an institution was never relevant to any of Paul's target audiences.
2. Paul did address slavery as an institution, but never in writing.
3. Paul did address slavery as an institution in writing, but the document has been lost to us.

1) I did not write or say anything about the policy at all. Paul wrote several passages about slavery.

No, Paul wrote several passages offering specific advice to Christian slaves and masters for specific circumstances. He never addressed slavery as an institution.

2) I never offered anything (other than silence) which could be construed as condoning the policy. Paul offered substantial teaching on the subject and NOT ONCE did he condemn it.

Not once did he condone the entire institution, either. This is my point.

3) Paul was supposedly writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit and thus should be infallible. I have no such pretensions.

...other than the pretension to be able to infallibly determine what Paul's opinion was on the institution of Roman slavery in general even though he never addressed the topic specifically...

This is a strawman. I never said that Paul was opposed to slavery. I realise he never explicitly stated so (though the above passage in 1 Corinthians does tend to give that impression), and to claim that he was is to rely on implicit evidence.

Okay, good you acknowledge that Paul was not opposed to slavery (and lets not forget that Roman slavery was a whole lot more cruel than Hebrew slavery)

I made no such acknowledgement. Let's do a recap of our exchange in this thread:

1. You claimed that Paul condoned slavery. Thus, it was you making the original claim and you who must support this assertion.
2. I pointed out that your assertion has no evidence.

In reality, this exchange should have stopped there. Either you must produce evidence (other than a weak argument from silence), or you must admit that there is no support for your allegation. However, you have continued by reading more into my claims than I wrote or even intended:

3. You misunderstood this as a claim that Paul was opposed to slavery.
4. I pointed out that I made no such claim (which is not to say that I don't believe it to be true - only that I hadn't made the claim, and therefore I am not obliged to defend it at this point).
5. Now, you interpret this to mean that I claimed Paul was not opposed to slavery, which is also a claim that I didn't make.

All I am trying to claim here is that Paul never explicitly made known his feelings on the entirity of the slavery institution. At this stage, I am trying to debunk your assertion that Paul was obviously pro-slavery. That is all. My feelings on Paul's attitude towards slavery as a whole are irrelevant at this point.

I do not claim that Paul condone ALL ASPECTS of slavery. What I am claiming is that he NEVER CONDEMNED it as an institution.

So what if he didn't? I already pointed out that as an institution it didn't deserve blanket condemnation - it was only abuses that needed to be condemned (which Paul did). See above for a response to your "but its wrong to own another human period" defence.

If he really wanted the masters to be kind to their slaves, then why didn't he tell them to FREE them?

Prove to me that the slaves who Paul was addressing were happy with their social status and didn't want to be freed. You are the one asserting, you must prove.

Remember that Paul wrote letters to congregations in cities, and that urban slaves were substantially better off and better-treated than were the rural slaves, who were put to hard labour.

What is more important the general principle or the exceptions?

In this context, what is more important in the context that Paul was addressing. As I have repeatedly stated, Paul was not addressing the general principle.

I suppose there were exceptions in NEW World Slavery as well. I am told, although I have not studied it, that a number of slaves refused to leave their masters after they were freed by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Does that mean, then, it would be wrong to condemn 19th century slavery in America?

There probably were exceptions in 19th century slavery (although far fewer than in Roman times). Are you suggesting that those masters who held onto slaves (who didn't want to be freed) were evil because it was "evil" to own another human being?

How do you think these masters got the slaves in the first place?

As Miller's literature survey shows, there are a number of possibilities here. You simply keep assuming (without proof) that the masters who Paul was addressing acquired their slaves by kidnapping. You have to assume this to make your argument float, but where is your proof? Moreover, as I pointed out above it is highly unlikely that Paul, as a devout Jew and early Christian, would have approved of kidnapping as a means of acquiring slaves.

How do you think they kept them subordinate? Violence or the threat of violence is the only answer.

Violence was not the only answer - again, you're simply assuming this in order to make your case fly. Use your imagination a little - aren't there ways of keeping people subordinate without resorting to violence? Don't employers manage to keep their employees subordinate today without using violence? Of course they do. Keeping people subordinate does not necessarily imply that violence is being used to do so.

Miller actually gives several examples of different types of positive (ie, non-violent) incentive that were used to encourage obedience - profit sharing, gifts, maternity leave, and of course manumission.

This is linguistically naive. No two words have the exact same semantic range. Even close synonyms have some connotational differences. The key point here is that the English word "own" and the Hebrew word achuzzah have a common semantic overlap. At that point of intersection, the meaning conveyed by the English is the same as the meaning conveyed by the Hebrew.

Indeed, they have an overlap. But they also have extremes of semantic range that do not overlap. And you have done nothing to show why the common range is to be preferred to the extremes where they are different. Meanwhile, I have shown (actually, you showed) that in Hebrew thought YHWH owned everything, and the Hebrews "achuzzahed" it (which is more like a lease).

That is not true. I live in the USA. I own a dog. I cannot do whatever I want to with that dog. If I torture the dog or do not feed it, I will be reported to the local authorities and would be charged with a misdemeanor of cruelty to animals.

I own a house. I cannot do whatever I want to it. If I set fire to it, I will be charged with arson.

Your whole argument here just sank.

Heh, far from sinking my whole argument, if anything you've actually supported it. Even by modern usage, "ownership" does not automatically imply exclusive right to do whatever you wish with the "owned" object. Although the point remains that "achuzzah" and "own" are (in general) at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to exclusive right (exceptions notwithstanding).

You are trying to make slavery sound like working for an employer today. It was drastically different. The slave had very few rights, certainly not all that the freed man had. Could he leave and take a vacation? Could he call in sick? Could he choose where he wanted to live?

Rather, you are trying to make slavery (in the OT at this point) sound like it was drastically different from working for an employer today, and you are doing so by repeated argument by assertion. All I am doing is challenging your assertions. Where does the OT say that a slave cannot call in sick, choose where he wanted to live, or take a vacation? If you can't support this, then your assertion is unfounded.

This [Lev 25:42-43] seems to imply that to even sell someone into slavery was to treat them ruthlessly.

And again, the distinction is merely one of duration of obligation (life vs a fixed term), and the meaning of "unceasingly" is not out-of-place for "perek".

Btw, you again skipped over an error you made. You originally said that to substitute "unceasingly" for "perek" was out-of-place (in Lev 25:46) because "That is not borne out by the grammar of the verse." (see post 144). You offered the explanation that ruthlessly was an adverb modifying "rule". I pointed out that "unceasingly" is also an adverb, and is therefore not grammatically out-of-place. You ignored this.

Question: do you admit that there is nothing grammatically out-of-place by using "unceasingly" in Lev 25:46 in place of "ruthlessly"? Yes or no?

You cannot just invent a meaning of a word. You need to show me a lexicon where "unceasingly" is a possibility for this word.

I can't just invent a meaning of a word, no, but I can suggest (by examining the context) that the meaning currently assigned by the lexicon is incorrect.

As far as supposed redundancy, that is grammatically naïve. The phrased after "rigour" is an adverbial clause modifying the adverb "ruthlessly".

What? "rigour" and "ruthlessly" are the same word (perek). You've confused me here.

As far as the statement "made them serve with rigour" being repeated--sometimes statements are reiterated for emphasis.

I said nothing about that statement being repeated. I pointed out that the passage said the Israelites were made to serve "with rigour" and that they were placed in hard bondage. Yes, sometimes phrases with a similar meaning are used to emphasise a point, but it is also common for phrases with a different meaning to make different points...

How about the master who frees his slave (or never owns one in the first place) AND provides ample food, water, clothing, etc as payment for what he has already done? Why is it more humane to hold him against his will?

Do you always answer multiple choice tests by supplying additional answers to the questions? You originally wrote: "I maintain that the most important aspect of the ruthless treatment was the fact that they could NEVER get their release. If you are free to treat them ruthlessly in the most important aspect, then the other aspects pale in significance." I specifically crafted my question as a means to test the relative importance you placed on freedom vs other things, to see if you were consistent in this view. So I'll restate the question:

Given a choice between giving a man food without freedom or freedom without food, which would you prefer?

No, you can take it as not being germane to the main point and for the sake of succinctness it was not replied to.

That is weak. This is relevant because it has some effect on what the meaning of "perek" could possibly be. If the personal injury laws apply to non-Hebrew slaves, then it means that "perek" cannot imply physical harshness.

Question: do you admit that the personal injury laws for slaves in Exodus 21:12-35 apply to non-Hebrew slaves, and that you were wrong to try and restrict it to Hebrew slaves only?

You keep bringing up the "created" vs. "begotten" matter. If you want to debate me on that lets go. The fact remains that the Nicene Creed, the Evangelical Theological Society, every Evangelical seminary I am aware of says it is INAPPROPRIATE to use the word "created" to refer to the Son.

I already admitted that everyone thinks it inappropriate (and I'm inclined to agree). But the fact remains that all of the above sources (myself included) agree that the meaning which JPH intended is not unorthodox, even if the terminology he selected was unconventional. That's the point - you tend to focus on words (eg "slave") while ignoring possible variance in meaning.

Hey Jezz! Where ya been?

Yesterday @ 04:28 PM post located here
jpholding:

Why should I when EVERYONE agrees with me and NOONE agrees with you

Yes, I suppose you should continue to argue from authority, huh? What immense hypocrisy!

When EVERY SCHOLAR OF EVERY PERSUASION IS AGAINST YOU that should be a red sign, Mr. Holding.

Here are my exact words from post #185: The point is that a betrothed girl was considered already married and stoning was the punishment (if the Jews were free to enact it). Deut. 22:23-24

Exactly. No qualification of &quot;as it relates to the law&quot;; you merely add this now because you are reversing yourself. So have you now settled on this new position for good and may we proceed?

How funny! What is marriage but a legal institution? What is a bill of divorcement or stoning but legal recourses? YOu are desperate.

Why don't you tell us, Mr. Scholar

As predicted, you refuse to answer the question. Why? Are you scared?

You say that all of the translations are wrong and yet you want me to prove that they are right? Why don't you prove they are wrong since that is your assertion? There doesn't seem to be much controversy on the subject except in YOUR MIND.

Since you have a Strong's concordance at your disposal you should easily be able to dismantle the Hebrew language scholars who translated the Old Testament--ALL OF THEM. ROFL

3. I have shown where Joseph was mulling over this possibility of a bill of divorcement with his betrothed wife--Mary.

You have &quot;shown&quot; an example 1400 years too late. Obviously you have no example contempoary with the Pentateuch's traditional date, or you would have brought it up by now. You will need to show evidence instead of crying because you have none.

Note that this was #3 in my list of evidences. You have not dealt with #1 or #2 except to say they were presumptive. As for #3 when do you think this legal recourse that Joseph was mulling over for an unfaithful betrothed wife was first implemented? If you have evidence that it was not implemented until BC 6 or so then WHY DON'T YOU PRODUCE IT?

The slave girl was essentially in the same 'condition' as the woman who was raped and could not help herself.

Try it now. You may learn something about the social sciences, Zeus forbid.

Lets look at the verse again:

Lev. 19:20: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that [is] a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. "

So even though she was in the same condition as the woman who was raped, according to you, she should still be scourged? Since when do we scourge women for being raped?

In addition, it gives the reason at the end of the verse as to why they are not put to death, "because she was not free" .

HOW HARD IS THAT? You are really messed up.

Then why don't you cite the contrary evidence from commentators, etc! instead of just claiming it exists?

We've been through it already -- the whole issue of YHWH being the real owner of things. Forget that?

Oh that really answers your problem. Sheesh.

Why don't you try quoting someone who has actually published something?

Well, that would sure not be you. So you can't answer his arguments?

I told you anytime you feel brave enough to bet me on this, go ahead. I could use some additional cash now after Christmas.

Oops,

[i]When EVERY SCHOLAR OF EVERY PERSUASION IS AGAINST YOU that should be a red sign, Mr. Holding.[/i[]

Sorry, not "every". The Living Bible uses the word FIANCEE.

How funny! What is marriage but a legal institution?

A SOCIAL one, you silly social science person. And this is still a dodge for your change of view. Fine, I'll accept that you're qualifying now.

What is a bill of divorcement or stoning but legal recourses?

Obviously you are imposing the modern sharp dichotomy between social and legal action here. What were the ranks of the police force in ancient Israel that did the stoning and what court did they submit the bill to?

As an aside, you should be aware that marriage was not just a joining of single people in this time, but of WHOLE FAMILIES.

You say that all of the translations are wrong and yet you want me to prove that they are right?

All but the LIV so far, and even that is somewhat anachronistic. In the meantime you're obviously too frightened to answer the question because you know it puts you into an indefensible position.


Note that this was #3 in my list of evidences.

It was the one example of a bill of divorcement used in a bethrothal you had -- ROFL, you have ONLY ONE EXAMPLE! -- and it's imploded on you! It's 1400 years too late!

See how funny you sound?

You have not dealt with #1 or #2 except to say they were presumptive

And so it is. Now why not answer why questions?

1) What is the Hebrew word for WIFE?
2) For FIANCEE?
3) For WOMAN?

Chicken? Buuck buck buck.....ooh, look, Gargy laid an egg!

I have evidence. This is it. Now answer the questions.

So even though she was in the same condition as the woman who was raped, according to you, she should still be scourged?

First of all, I think you know that the word "scourged" there is found ONLY there in the OT and that the meaning is questionable.

Second, this is a change of topic. The issue is, WHY IS THE MAN ALLOWED TO SURVIVE HERE AND NOT IN THE OTHER CASE? You're obviously hoping to distract attention from your ignorance in the social sciences. Keep it up.

In addition, it gives the reason at the end of the verse as to why they are not put to death, "because she was not free" .

Correct. And now, WHY do you suppose this is so, WITH RELATION to the passages in Deuteronomy?

Keep thinking.

Oh that really answers your problem. Sheesh.

It sure does. Little wonder "sheesh" is your only "answer". It's easy to tell when you're down and out in the answer department.

I told you anytime you feel brave enough to bet me on this, go ahead. I could use some additional cash now after Christmas.

Little wonder, since you're obviously unemployed and have nothing to do with yourself. Who would take a former fundy professor except another fundy institution, and why would they take one if he was an apostate?

Since you're chicken to answer the questions, why not try for a cashier's job at Chick-Fil-A? They have HQ near you and you're already used to not working on Sunday.

Today @ 03:15 AM post located here
Jezz:


It wasn't your intention??? You wrote: &quot;Jezz, I guess I was mistaken. I thought that you were above this type of argumentation.&quot; What was your intention in writing this, if not to offend??? It certainly contributes no logical or evidential weight to your argument. You're not trying to tell me that the implication that I was using a &quot;low form of argumentation&quot; was a complimentary remark?

Jezz, I apologized. If that is not good enough for you then I am sorry. Things get a little dicey in debates if your feelings are really that fragile, then maybe you should not be on here.

And it is what the word &quot;slave&quot; means in this context which is exactly the point at issue here. I claim that it does not mean &quot;own&quot; in the way that you claim that it does.

What does it mean then Jezz? I guess it means some type of really nice thing and I have just missed it. You can try to dress "slavery" up all you want but at the end of the day, it is still an ugly, despicable practice. Virtually the entire world recognizes this now, what is taking you so long?

In the most generic sense, a master-slave relationship is one where the slave has some obligation to act according to the wishes of the master. If the slave had no obligation to do the wishes of the master, then it no longer makes sense to call such an arrangement &quot;slavery&quot;. Hence, obligation is the essential nature of slavery.

The only problem I have with the above definition is "some obligation" . I think the slave has more than "some obligation", I think he is "totally obligated" to do the wishes of the master.

In my view, this is what distinguishes a slave from a hired hand. A slave has no will of his own, which is precisely the distinction in Greek between doulos δουλος and diakonos διακονος. R. C. Trench, in his classic, Synonyms of the Greek New Testament , p. 32, says about doulos: "one whose will was swallowed up in the will of his master [*1 Corinthians 7:23], and one who served his master even to the extent that he disregarded his own interests [*Matthew 20:27, Mark 10:44]. " The diakonos on the other hand, could serve multiple people and did so with a measure of free will.

It seems to me that you are saying that the Hebrew enslavement of other Hebrews may have been more akin to diakonos . I do not agree but am willing for the sake of argument to grant that. I WILL NOT GRANT, HOWEVER, THAT THEIR ENSLAVEMENT OF NON-HEBREWS IS AKIN TO diakonoS. I WILL ALSO NOT GRANT THAT ROMAN SLAVERY WAS AKIN TO diakonos. In both of these cases, the slave had no will of his own and was completely at the disposal of his master. Of course there were some laws that prevented absolute cruelty but the did not change the basic arrangement of slavery.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, I am obligated to my bank, to my employer, etc - they have some control over what I can and cannot do in my life. And so I am, in this sense, &quot;owned&quot; by my bank and by my employer - I am a slave to them. We all have this sort of obligation every day. You have made it clear that you find nothing fundamentally wrong with this.

Jezz, this is not slavery, not even in the diakonos sense much less the doulos sense. C'mon, you know better than that.


This relationship with your bank and with your employer--did you enter into those voluntarily or were you forced to enter into them?

So your foundational statement &quot;It is inhumane for one human being to own another&quot; is too vague and equivocal to be of any real use. &quot;Ownership&quot; can imply a variety of different types of obligation, depending on the context, that can lie anywhere in-between the extremes of voluntary indebtedness (eg, bank loans) and pure chattel (eg, 19th century slavery). What you really need to do if you want to prove your case is two things:

1. Instead of simply saying &quot;it is wrong to own another human being&quot;, you need to say where on this spectrum the cut-off is between acceptable and unacceptable ownership, and realise that any such cut-off is also going to be rather fuzzy and relative to other
2. Having established the cut-off point, evaluate Biblical slavery and prove that it is on the &quot;wrong&quot; end of the cut-off.

Jezz, I commend you. You have done about as good a job of trying to defend the indefensible as anyone could. However, the basic point remains: "It is wrong for one human being to own another human being in the sense of property that can be bought, sold, traded, willed to descendants, etc. When one human being is being "forced" to serve another human being with no recourse, that is wrong.

Jezz, for the sake of time I am going to have cut this off. I will come back to it in the next day or two.

I said I would come back to this post from JPH and here it is.

post located here
jpholding:

Obeying my boss or my wife is not the same as being a slave to either one.

It isn't? Functionally there is not a lick of difference in terms of the category you offered: Control of what a person does.

I do not know what kind of relationship you have with your wife but I can assure you mine is not a master/slave relationship.

The non-Hebrew slaves entered in voluntary servitude?

Yep.

Oh really. How historically naive you are?

The virgins that were taken entered in voluntary servitude?

Yes, with a caveat appropos to slaves taken in war. In that case what we have though is a voluntary act of a nation's leaders to commit their people to war, knowing that enslavement would be the result if they lost. The collective of the people would stand by the leader's descision within the hierarchy and also know the risk -- a voluntary one from the collective.

ROFL. This is the best game of dodgeball yet. ROFL

The women did not become slaves voluntarily nor did the prisoners of war. If it was voluntary, then why did they have to use weapons? Why did they have to continue to use force to keep these people in servitude?

They possessed them but did not own them? A distinction without a difference.

A distinction with a huge difference you'd rather ignore. A renter possesses an apartment; let him spill beer on the walls and say there is no &quot;distinction&quot; in his having to pay for the damage whether he wants to or not.

Mr. Anachronism strikes again. I don't think Moses drank Budweiser nor did he rent an apartment.

The fact is they owned or possessed them in the very same way they owned or possessed cattle.

In other words, not owned at all, but owned by YHWH, who owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Thank you.

Yes they did. They had control over them. They could buy and sell them. They could will them to their children. They owned them.

I am sure it would have made the slave feel a lot better to be told--your master does not own you, he merely possesses you.

I am sure they'd feel a lot better about not having died and having a secure place in the social hierarchy. Is that what you're reduced to now, appeals to emotion now that a rational evaluation is obviously failing you?

No, I am just showing how ludicrous your position is.

I don't know but he supposedly provided manna supernaturally for 40 years

So I'm asking you again: What do you want? Food flopped into your mouth and that of millions of people for an eternity? What are you, a welfare state advocate? Don't throw this &quot;surely&quot; carpola around; give us a viable and practical alternative, not just a suggestion that we sit on our bums while God picks up the remote for us.

God provided the manna. Are you saying he was wrong to do so? Are you saying that he was a welfare state advocate? I am saying that if he is God there ought to be some way to make sure people are fed without having to make them slaves of one another. Why can't someone work for someone else without becoming their slave? It seems to have worked well in other societies.

But everyone is a slave according to you; why is stipulations only laid down for this minority of people which the Bible calls slaves? I thought they were all slaves.

They all are in some sense -- but within the relationships we are discussing that one would be tempted to mistreat and dehumanize another. No law is needed where no such temptation or possibility exists.

So you are admitting that everyone is not truly a slave. Good for you.

You said &quot;serve&quot; now you want to change the wording.

Because meaning is now different for the concept being brought across. It remains that it is a matter of hierarchical service.

"Serve" in Hebrew carries the concept of worship. You are wrong again.

This verse does not say that the slave is serving YHWH through his Master.

Don't pull that absurdity. You're surely not so out of it as to suggest that any Jew like Paul would have suggested that a slave would not have some obligation to YHWH as a Christian.

No Paul would not say that but YOU are saying it.

Well if they are serving their human master then they are serving other gods.

Pfft! Oh brother, this is rich! So a human master is a god now! What are you, a Mormon today?!?

Whatever a person serves is in effect a god to that person.

Moses nowhere says that all are slaves--that is you not him.

That is the social world of the Bible and its reality, according to credentialed scholars in the field -- not you.

I guess Moses was not a credentialed scholar. He could probably learn so much from your scholars.

So there was a difference. The non-Hebrew slaves were owned like chattel.

So there was a difference: The economic realities made this a fair and equitable setup.

So you finally acknowledge that they did own slaves as chattel. Took you long enough. It was fair and equitable for everyone except the slave.

Oh really. So they had to make slaves out of them? That was the only option.

Oh really. And just sitting there with your mouth hanging open is not an answer.

Your god is not very powerful.

I quoted the relevant passages. If you think there are other passages that contradict my conclusion then bring em on.

I quoted the relevant scholars. If you can't evade them by doing anything but hiding your head in a Bible and slapping off outside informing contexts like a little girl swatting flies, help yourself.

Once again you are showing that you do not care what the Bible says. Your theology is based on the latest fad in scholarship.

Punishment is generic and implies something less than death.

Gee, so when we say we will &quot;punish&quot; Ted Bundy with the electric chair, that means it was just an eeny weeny shock. Is that what the commentators say?

Nope because when you add "the electric chair" everyone knows that means death. If you just said: "we are going to punish Ted Bundy." That would allow for something less than death.

Neither are killed not just the girl. This shows that the crime was considered to be less of an offense.

Because the girl is not killed? Yes, this makes a ton of sense. But at least you threw the man in this time. So now will you say, it's not fair because HE is not killed?

The fact remains that if two free people are found to be committing adultery--they both die. If a free man and a slave girl are caught--they do not die. Why? Because it was considered to be less of an offense to commit adultery with a slave than with a free person. Compare the Deuteronomy passage to Lev. 19:20 and it is obvious that a double standard was used.

20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that [is] a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE.

So we really shouldn't condemn Roman slavery after all?

So we really should do our homework before condemning Paul in his particular instance -- as Jezz has already told you.

I have answered Jezz and am awaiting his reply.

That still does not change the fact they owned other human beings so that they could have a more robust lifestyle.

It nevertheless does change any attempt to compare it to American slavery.

Sure it does. You don't think the slaves in America gave their Masters a more robust lifestyle?

The house slaves in the Old South got uniforms too and special privileges, I guess that makes Old South slavery okay.

Heck, just keep beating that drum of ignorance. I'm sure you know that the field slaves considered the house slaves of a different class, huh? Now did those uniforms make the slaves in the South social members of the household?

You ignore the point. The point is that because SOME, a very SMALL MINORITY , of the slaves were granted extra rank and privilege DOES NOT justify the whole institution of slavery. If it does then you should apologize for condemning Old South slavery.

Miller's whole treatise is that Roman slavery was not as bad as American slavery, therefore it was okay.

Just the same ball of wax: An incomplete and erroneous summary.

That is exactly what he is saying. Its not as bad as it could have been so therefore its not worth condemning.

So they had to become slaves in order to justify the risk in caring for another human being.

So that was the reality of the ancient world, and standing with your hands on your hips and your lower lip stuck out is not an answer.

So making a person a slave was the only way to care for them. How kind.

I guess since most of these were girls, we know what kind of slave functions were expected from them.

Yep. HOUSECLEANING! Get your mind out of the gutter.

You are really historically naive aren't you?

The Roman empire was not a poor empire.

It was poor enough that it didn't have the means to deliver social services to the necessary level. Why do you think &quot;bread and circuses&quot; was all that could be had -- and was limited to the city of Rome itself? There were not enough resources to take care of everyone -- period.

It was not a poor empire and had the means of caring for people without resorting to slavery. It was at least as prosperous as the Old South. Based on your logic, one could argue that in the OLD South, if the Negroes were freed they would starve to death, so the most humane thing to do was to keep them in slavery.

I would contend that anyone who forces another human being into slavery is an outlaw and a criminal.

How about in war?

Yep.

then why didn't Augustine follow Paul here and tell them to be content and obey.

Why don't you ask Augustine and find out? Maybe he was in a different contextual setting than Paul.

So you acknowledge the difference between Augustine and Paul. Augustine condemned slavery (maybe because he was more enlightened) and Paul condoned it. The funny thing is that Paul was supposed to be writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Some people in our society today get so desperate that they resort to prostitution or to bank robbery.

Ah. So selling yourself into slavery, not hurting anyone else, is a crime like bank robbery. Way to go. Just keep putitng your foot into it, Gargy.

No it is just recognizing that desperate people will do desperate things to survive. Notice you did not mention prostitution.

More to ignore:

Among the most unfortunate of slaves were those purchased to serve as gladiators or prostitutes

That is enough right there to condemn the whole practice.

Gargamel:

I do not know what kind of relationship you have with your wife but I can assure you mine is not a master/slave relationship.

So you never do what she asks you to around the house? Who takes out the garbage? Or does it just sit and rot in the kitchen? Or maybe you throw it out the window like in medieval times...

Oh really. How historically naive you are?

Not in the least. The OT condemns kidnapping for slavery, so voluntary is it beyond the war caveat.


The women did not become slaves voluntarily nor did the prisoners of war

By the means I laid out, collective national support, they most certainly did and you did not answer that point at all.

If it was voluntary, then why did they have to use weapons?

Why did people use weapons in war....why....gee, I dunno. To keep the enemy from killing them first?

Mr. Anachronism strikes again. I don't think Moses drank Budweiser nor did he rent an apartment.

Mr Dodgeball flubs again. He nevertheless did live in an age when YHWH OWNED all of it, and they were just "renting" everything. A renter also "controls" what he rents. "Control" is not a gauge for ownership. I can also buy or sell a lease in certain conditions.

No, I am just showing how ludicrous your position is.

IOW you cannot answer that all you have is emotion to offer. Thank you.

God provided the manna. Are you saying he was wrong to do so? Are you saying that he was a welfare state advocate?

Your usual non-answer. "There must be some way." "What way?" "I dunno, there must be some way." "What way?" "I DON'T KNOW BUT THERE HAD TO BE A BETTER ONE!" Sorrowful.

No, a welfare state would be if YHWH provided manna for Israel's entire history -- not just when they were vulnerable.

Why can't someone work for someone else without becoming their slave? It seems to have worked well in other societies.

Name them -- and show that the same social conditions as were in the ANE applied there as well.

So you are admitting that everyone is not truly a slave.

Yet another lie/mispresentation. I clearly said all were in some sense.

"Serve" in Hebrew carries the concept of worship.

It carries the concept of religious devotion? Spare me!

No Paul would not say that but YOU are saying it.

Another lie/mispreresentation. I said no such thing; I have stated, and clearly so, that the matter is one of a social hierarchy: direct and/or indirect service.

Whatever a person serves is in effect a god to that person.

Oh! Oh! "In effect" -- so when you take the garbage out, is it for your Wife God?

I guess Moses was not a credentialed scholar. He could probably learn so much from your scholars.

An obvious dodge for your inability to answer the scholars who have explained what Moses was actually saying in the context of his social world.

So you finally acknowledge that they did own slaves as chattel.

Yet another lie/misrepresetation since I said no such thing and did not use the word. I also noted that it WAS fair and equitable and explained why, and all you did was cry in response: "Waaaaaah, that's not fair, that's not FAIR!"

Your god is not very powerful.

Your practical options are not very conspicuous.

Once again you are showing that you do not care what the Bible says. Your theology is based on the latest fad in scholarship.

Once again you show that you have no answer to that scholarship so all you can do is stamp your feet at it and call it names like a child and imply that it will pass.

Nope because when you add "the electric chair" everyone knows that means death.

And you have added nothing in the passage that "means" what you want it to other than "that's what it must mean". I answered the Lev. 19:20 issue previously.

Sure it does. You don't think the slaves in America gave their Masters a more robust lifestyle?

It was not the sole purpose as it was in the cases Miller laid out.

You ignore the point.

You ignore MY point, about what this meant in Rome. What it meant in the South has nothing to do with it.

That is exactly what he is saying.

The same incomplete and erroneous summary. Jezz is killing you on this and the carnage is fun to watch.

So making a person a slave was the only way to care for them. How kind.

Lips stuck out....hands on hips...good. Now sing, "You don't need pants for a victory dance..."


You are really historically naive aren't you?

Not in the least. Lay out your evidence for pedophilia in ancient Israel, other than your own dirty mind's imaginations.

It was not a poor empire and had the means of caring for people without resorting to slavery

Pfaw! Now he's an expert on ancient economics. No, it did NOT have the resources to do so. It had nearly constant wars to fight; it had services to provide, and no surplus for a social safety net. Period.

Based on your logic, one could argue that in the OLD South, if the Negroes were freed they would starve to death,

In America they would not have starved to death -- technology was advanced enough that that would not happen. Where is Rome's cotton gin?

How about in war? Yep.

Good for you. Condemn the whole ancient world to anarchy.

So you acknowledge the difference between Augustine and Paul

Nah they were clones. Lived in the same house and in the same conditions. At least you obviously think so.

No it is just recognizing that desperate people will do desperate things to survive. Notice you did not mention prostitution.

Obviously not. It's a different category. What's your point?

That is enough right there to condemn the whole practice.

Sure, and one instance of food poisoning is enough to condemn the whole practice of cooking.

Give it a rest, Mr Anachronist.

Today @ 03:15 AM post located here
Jezz:

As I have repeatedly pointed out, I am obligated to my bank, to my employer, etc - they have some control over what I can and cannot do in my life. And so I am, in this sense, &quot;owned&quot; by my bank and by my employer - I am a slave to them. We all have this sort of obligation every day. You have made it clear that you find nothing fundamentally wrong with this.

Bad analogies are legend here at the TWEB apologetics forum.

Usually they are just amusing and harmless attempts by theists with limited intellect, to try and relate something they typically don't understand into something they think they do.

But that is not the case here.

When I see something like this, written by someone with Jezz's intellect, it sends a chill up my spine. It tells me that there is something else at work here. Something that would require a smart young man to so desperately want to defend the slavery practices of some ANE peoples, that he would compare it to the "obligations" he has to his "bank" or "employer".

It is delusion.

It is denial.

It is the need to believe in something so desperately, you are more than willing to compromise your principles and abandon rational analysis to defend it.

It is desperate.

To compare the obligation to make your minimum monthly payment on your credit card, (where Jezz may have purchased one too many books on quantum theory and bad theology), to the "obligation" an ANE slave has to its owner, is at once hideous and beyond naive.

Why would an intelligent person do it?

What is the motivation that would drive their thinking into making this delusional analogy?

Selfishness?

Literary idolatry?

Religious pride?

Simple imitation of other apologists?

These same analogies or worse, allowed southern Christians to defend their slave ownership in debates with northern abolitionists 150 years ago in the U.S.A.

But at least the partial motivation there was that these people actually owned slaves and had a great deal to lose. They were willing to fight and die to defend their "property" and their bad analogies.

Something different is at work here.

And it is chilling to watch.

LGM
...being a "slave" to your dogmatic beliefs appears to be a higher "obligation" than being rational...

LakeGeorgeMan:

When I see something like this, written by someone with Jezz's intellect, it sends a chill up my spine.

Why? Do you suddenly realizing what you're missing?

It is emotion.

It is irrational.

It is not an answer.

It is you getting frustrated because you lack answers.

It is sorrowful.

It is manipulative.

It is a good reason to decry the lack of critical thinking in this country.

It is you bigotedly assuming your own values superior when you have never walked a step in the ancient world nor lived their life.

It is you sinking into a plush armchair and condemning millions to painful deaths based on selfish, individualist principles.

Keep it up, Genghis. Had it been all your way, humanity would have spun out of control and died of starvation and anarchy by 200 AD....probably while they were looking for the remote....

JP
...being a slave to your ignorance and emotion appears to be a higher "obligation" than being rational...and actually answering points directly...

LakeGeorgeMan,

It is the need to believe in something so desperately, you are more than willing to compromise your principles and abandon rational analysis to defend it.

Jehovah promotes and supports slavery. Jesus uses slavery in his parables and never speaks out against it. Christians are forced to defend biblical slavery in order to maintain their belief that Jehovah and Jesus are morally good. If they were to ever admit that the slavery that is depicted in the bible was evil, they would be admitting that the biblical god was evil, which is not something a Christian can ever do. Instead, the Christians in this forum invent rationalizations for biblical slavery. They claim that being a slave is really no different than holding a bank account, or that, in the final analysis, everyone is a slave to someone.

It is sad that Christians go to these lengths to defend the indefensible, but it is also understandable.

Cheers,

Jimbo

jimbo:

Waaah waah wah wahhh waaaah wahhh wahhhh I don't CARE what it was like in the ancient world wahhhh wahhhh waahh wahhh wah I don't NEED to answer your arguments WAAAh waaHhhh wAAAh you're such a MEANIE AND SO IS YAHWEH wahhh wAhhhh Waaah! Wah!

Thanks for the intelligent discourse.