Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[juvenissun]

My contention is that self-professed "wise men" today can't tell the difference between a slave and a bondservant in the Bible.

And that doesn't surprise me one bit.

That is a good term.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is a good term.

In order for scientists to make their accusations about the Bible stick, they have to change Its wording.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

They claim they are Homo sapiens, and that means "wise men."

Paul warns against doing that, as it can (and does) lead to atheism.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

In cases where it doesn't lead to atheism, it can lead to witchcraft.

wizard (n.)

early 15c., "philosopher, sage," from Middle English wys "wise" (see wise (adj.)) + -ard. Compare Lithuanian zynyste "magic," zynys "sorcerer," zyne "witch," all from zinoti "to know." The ground sense is perhaps "to know the future." The meaning "one with magical power, one proficient in the occult sciences" did not emerge distinctly until c. 1550, the distinction between philosophy and magic being blurred in the Middle Ages.

Note the similarities with science here?

If you're here any length of time, you will see these exact words used.

Note especially the preference for the term "magic" over "miracles" in these posts.

"Witch" comes from the word "to know" ... as does "science."

Many profess to know the future of the universe, and it is nowhere close to how God says it is going to end.

Again, knowledge and wisdom are not the same things. Most of us are attempting to express some knowledge.

No expert on Latin myself but consider sapien can also be understood as having or being rational as opposed to grouping us as a species with creatures that lack such rationality. And that such a distinction is probably more along the lines of what the first person calling our species that had in mind, rather than implying he felt our species particularly smart - which is also not the meaning of wise.

I guess to the degree we choose to use what God gave us, think rationally and use our judgement and experience properly that is, a person could be said to be wise. Science in general is the search for truth and collecting truths into a body of human knowledge. If a Christian's faith includes allowing the belief to see God as Truth (I am the Truth) and having Perfect Knowledge, then am not sure why we should see science as anything other than what it is; a search for Him. That would be true whether the seeker acknowledges Him or not. And it would be the function of our rationality given to us by God and setting us apart from other animals here in that regard which allows us to seek Him.

So I do not agree God would make us rational but not want use to it in seeking Him. Nor do I believe we need to see science as opposed to or even in competition with our Faith, though certainly some scientist are opposed.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

In order for scientists to make their accusations about the Bible stick, they have to change Its wording.

That is correct, but an issue with the scientist and not science. It would not be particularly scientific to alter/change something in order to fit a desired outcome would it?

 

[juvenissun]

Does God regularly change his mind then? I thought he knew everything that is going to happen or is that just a myth?

The O/T seems to be a catalogue of Gods disasters, one mistake and mess after another, reason? the Christian God is a mishmash of all the Gods that were around long before he was even thought of.

Your view is typical for one who do not understand.

One of the most amazing thing in the Bible which lead me to my faith is the consistency of God's message. I think it is an impossible thing to happen for a collection of Books that stretch over a few thousands of years. Everything said in the Bible from the Genesis to the Revelation can not be more systematic and consistent on every issues.

The teaching about slavery in the Pentateuch is absolutely consistent with the social situation we are seeing today. The same principle which is only manifested by different social structures. We banned the literal slavery system today because we KNOW that we can not do it well. Yet, we are doing similar thing under many modern disguises. As we can imagine, they are and will still be a mess.

 

[AV1611VET]

No expert on Latin myself but consider sapien can also be understood as having or being rational as opposed to grouping us as a species with creatures that lack such rationality.

Then why didn't they label us Homo rationalis?

Do you think it's coincidental they use the term Homo sapiens?

 

[AV1611VET]

That is correct, but an issue with the scientist and not science.

I would agree, if it wasn't for one point "wise acr"... er ... "wise men" overlook:

The tares (antibiblical science) have now outgrown the wheat (Biblical science).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Then why didn't they label us Homo rationalis?

Do you think it's coincidental they use the term Homo sapiens?

Perhaps because wise implies more than just being rational - my feeble attempt to redirect the focus away from what appeared to me to be an expression that smart=having knowledge=wise. I don't think the term sapien was selected because the person doing so thought humans as a collective group of creatures can be said to be wise as that implies a general trait of having experience, using rationality properly and having good judgement. I fail to see how an observant person would see those traits as being particularly applicable to every human so the selection of the term cannot have been or I should say it is not reasonable to suggest it was based on an observation about human in general being wise. I can see however how the term could be meant to distinguish the species in regards to our natural ability to reason (we are rational) compared to other similar species around us.

Pardon me if that was not what was intended but the way some posts were perceived by me. What I can say is that it is not particularly wise to go round and round with someone that not only does not wish to understand what the other is expressing but cannot fathom that their own expression is so narrow or so broad that it might be misunderstood.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That's because of the medical insurance system used in the US, no job = no medical cover and no medical cover could equal death, even with medical cover in the US it could mean death if the cover is refused, what a crazy backward system.

Am not sure why people who believe employment can represent a form of indentured servitude should restrict that thought to only US employment. But everyone has an opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pardon me if that was not what was intended but the way some posts were perceived by me. What I can say is that it is not particularly wise to go round and round with someone that not only does not wish to understand what the other is expressing but cannot fathom that their own expression is so narrow or so broad that it might be misunderstood.

Fair enough.

Nice chatting with you!

 

[AV1611VET]

if that's not a form of slavery I don't know what is,

Looks like "slavery" has found a new cruciverbalist.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Every seventh year, any slave can go free. Every fiftieth year, all debts (include slaves) go free.

Only for Hebrew debt slaves, not foreign slaves. Again, all you need to do is read the text of Lev. 25:

44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you—those born in your land. These may become your property. 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life.
​

Non-Hebrew slaves could be enslaved for life.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

You decide.

I already have. To me it is clear that owning another human being as property is not moral. It seems strange that so many people are having such a hard time answering this incredibly simple question.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

No the Scripture does not imply that.

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. When we say that if you spray paint your cat blue then you cannot be punished because that cat is your property, then that means you can spray paint your cat blue. When the bible says that if you beat your slave with a rod and they don't die right away then you cannot be punished because that slave is your property, then that means you can beat your slave.

I

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. When we say that if you spray paint your cat blue then you cannot be punished because that cat is your property, then that means you can spray paint your cat blue. When the bible says that if you beat your slave with a rod and they don't die right away then you cannot be punished because that slave is your property, then that means you can beat your slave.

You are trying to mislead.
You can eat any food. But not all foods are good to you.
God does understand human nature. There are many similar teachings in the Bible.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

You are trying to mislead.
You can eat any food. But not all foods are good to you.
God does understand human nature. There are many similar teachings in the Bible.

Obfuscating simply will not help you. God specifically gives permission for masters to beat their slaves. As the slave owners of the south argued, every single one of the writers of the bible was familiar with slavery, yet every time it is explicitly mentioned in the bible the institution is affirmed. You or I could have cleared this up with a single sentence - that God chose not to is telling.

A lack of knowledge is something I can help you with; a desire to be wrong is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

To me it is clear that owning another human being as property is not moral.

Who should I give my children to then (if I had any)?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Who should I give my children to then (if I had any)?

Why would you feel inclined to do this? And what does this have to do with owning people as property?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Ah, you should stop rejecting the increased knowledge we now have, and accept the fact of evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . Would also like to point out that a "belief" that something is true as it would apply to a theory, is not the same as knowing something to be true. We could talk about a theory being well supported by the evidence (or not), we could talk about gaps in the evidence for a theory(or it having none), and we could talk about a theory being more (or less) likely to accurately explain reality as we currently understand it. But we can never say we know or in this same sense believe a theory is true, because in science at least, at least real science and not someone pretending to have a position that stands against Christianity, saying or believing a theory to be true means it is no longer a theory. . . .

The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for the fact of evolution. Evolution really happened . . . and we have a theory to explain how.

The evidence for evolution really happening is vast and decisive.