Evilution VS Evolution

[AV1611VET]

I am actually a bit shocked you'd bother with the Hebrew, given that you personally consider the English King James Bible to be the most accurate.

Thank you.

I take that as a compliment.

But see post 305, where I'll play by his rules just to run this into the ground and show that appealing to the Hebrew language is an exercise in futility.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I was trying to say is that as used in Exod. , it is in the context of being hit with a rod,

You're entitled to translate "shebet" as "rod".

And I'm entitled to translate "shebet" as "dart".

Who's to say which one of us is wrong?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you.

I take that as a compliment.

But see post 305, where I'll play by his rules just to run this into the ground and show that appealing to the Hebrew language is an exercise in futility.

It is a compliment, and I should have worded it more strongly as one. I view working with the premises of the opposition and still being able to effectively hold one's own in a debate as a very high level debate skill that is sadly underused, despite its utility. Nothing makes the opposition look so wrong than to show that even with some of their rules or premises in place, they still won't win.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're entitled to translate "shebet" as "rod".

And I'm entitled to translate "shebet" as "dart".

Who's to say which one of us is wrong?

*imagines a guy angrily throwing lawn darts at a servant. Or beating them with one* *PsychoSarah is immensely amused by the ridiculous, albeit violent, imagery*

 

[AV1611VET]

In case you didn't notice, the word was servant/maid, not slave, in his post.

Ya ... "slave" isn't even one of the word choices.

Ebed, the Hebrew word, can be: bondage, bondman, (bond-)servant, or (man-)servant.

Unless, of course, Hoghead1 says otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

It makes no difference. Saying we should use "servant" rather than "slave" is simply putting lipstick on a pig, and you know it and he does, too.

Wow.

 

[AV1611VET]

*imagines a guy angrily throwing lawn darts at a servant. Or beating them with one* *PsychoSarah is immensely amused by the ridiculous, albeit violent, imagery*

As I showed earlier, I shall now repeat ...

Hebrews 12:20 For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

Animals were thrust through with darts.

And if animals can be thrust through with darts, so can humans.

Numbers 25:8a And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly.

Judges 4:21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ya ... "slave" isn't even one of the word choices.

Ebed, the Hebrew word, can be: bondage, bondman, (bond-)servant, or (man-)servant.

Unless, of course, Hoghead1 says otherwise.

A bondman is a serf or a slave, so his interpretation that it means slave is a fair one (especially since serf wasn't a term until around the 1500s). A bondservant is the same thing, and bondage is not a term for a person. That leaves manservant as the only definition amongst those that doesn't refer to a slave.

 

[AV1611VET]

A bondman is a serf or a slave, so his interpretation that it means slave is a fair one ...

Let's just *cough* assume you're right *cough* for the sake of the following point:

Do you prefer calling blacks the n-word?

If not, can't you apply the same courtesy to servants?

 

[Hoghead1]

Thank you.

I take that as a compliment.

But see post 305, where I'll play by his rules just to run this into the ground and show that appealing to the Hebrew language is an exercise in futility.

For you maybe, but not for the biblical scholars, who are far better educated and know what they are doing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

As I showed earlier, I shall now repeat ...

Hebrews 12:20 For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

Animals were thrust through with darts.

And if animals can be thrust through with darts, so can humans.

Numbers 25:8a And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly.

Judges 4:21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

I know, I was just posting my initial weird thoughts that resulted from reading what you said. Obviously, lawn darts didn't exist back then, and actually seeing someone being stabbed with one or any other sort of dart would be horrifying. But you see, since I thought of lawn darts, I was also picturing them dressed in 1970s clothing (curse this lack of theory of mind, I probably should have mentioned it), which made it more funny.

Don't do drugs, kids, or you'll think this stuff looks good XD XD XD
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GjFV-7HJj...ABbLE/jVmoO28y_Vg/s1600/1970s+fashion+(4).jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/98/56/7a/98567a44d523a8cdd84627b0c8da1a43.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/4f/c9/18/4fc918dad62531500396f0e1000749bc.jpg
I'd show more, but there are way too many 1970s male clothing ads in which there is either an exposed hairy chest or a lack of a shirt or pants, and I don't want to look through them anymore DX DX DX

 

[Hoghead1]

You're entitled to translate "shebet" as "rod".

And I'm entitled to translate "shebet" as "dart".

Who's to say which one of us is wrong?

Well, according to you, does it make sense to talk abut being struck with a dart? Now, of course, that could be a way of beating, I suppose. But rod makes more sense here. Also, you should remember that some of the ancient punishment rods actually had sharp metal points, or darts, I guess you could say, attached to them, so that they dug in, caused more pain, and did more damage.

 

[Hoghead1]

I know, I was just posting my initial weird thoughts that resulted from reading what you said. Obviously, lawn darts didn't exist back then, and actually seeing someone being stabbed with one or any other sort of dart would be horrifying. But you see, since I thought of lawn darts, I was also picturing them dressed in 1970s clothing (curse this lack of theory of mind, I probably should have mentioned it), which made it more funny.

Don't do drugs, kids, or you'll think this stuff looks good XD XD XD
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GjFV-7HJj2Q/VSrKwr-XBPI/AAAAAAABbLE/jVmoO28y_Vg/s1600/1970s+fashion+(4).jpg

Yes, but there were ancient punishment and torture instruments that did in fact have sharp metal "darts" attached to punch through skin.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/98/56/7a/98567a44d523a8cdd84627b0c8da1a43.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/4f/c9/18/4fc918dad62531500396f0e1000749bc.jpg
I'd show more, but there are way too many 1970s male clothing ads in which there is either an exposed hairy chest or a lack of a shirt or pants, and I don't want to look through them anymore DX DX DX

 

[Hoghead1]

Ya ... "slave" isn't even one of the word choices.

Ebed, the Hebrew word, can be: bondage, bondman, (bond-)servant, or (man-)servant.

Unless, of course, Hoghead1 says otherwise.

Again, you are simply trying to put lipstick on a pig here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let's just *cough* assume you're right *cough* for the sake of the following point:

Do you prefer calling blacks the n-word?

If not, can't you apply the same courtesy to servants?

Slaves and servants are not the same thing. Serfs and servants are also not the same thing. The biggest difference is that neither serfs nor slaves are paid for their work, and servants are. I could call a dog a cat, but then I would be using the word wrong. The term servant is not a more politically correct way of referring to a slave, but refers to something different altogether. Sorry, AV, but that's just how it is.

What I don't understand is why Hoghead doesn't just quote the following verses
Exodus Chapter 21 Verses 20-21
" And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
From the King James Version. Even the version you hold dear calls this servant the man's property/his money.

Also, you aren't going to like some of the verses after that either.

Exodus Chapter 21 Verses 22-
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."
This is also King James Version.

In other words, causing a premature birth (which would likely result in the child's death in those days, and frequently would even now) is not considered the same as killing another person, and the punishment is only death if the pregnant woman is significantly physically harmed by it. In the other translations besides the King James, it specifies that the punishment for causing a premature birth accidentally while in a fight with someone else is a fine of some amount of money determined by a court.

 

[Hoghead1]

Slaves and servants are not the same thing. Serfs and servants are also not the same thing. The biggest difference is that neither serfs nor slaves are paid for their work, and servants are. I could call a dog a cat, but then I would be using the word wrong. The term servant is not a more politically correct way of referring to a slave, but refers to something different altogether. Sorry, AV, but that's just how it is.

What I don't understand is why Hoghead doesn't just quote the following verses
Exodus Chapter 21 Verses 20-21
" And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
From the King James Version. Even the version you hold dear calls this servant the man's property/his money.

Also, you aren't going to like some of the verses after that either.

Exodus Chapter 21 Verses 22-
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."
This is also King James Version.

In other words, causing a premature birth (which would likely result in the child's death in those days, and frequently would even now) is not considered the same as killing another person, and the punishment is only death if the pregnant woman is significantly physically harmed by it. In the other translations besides the King James, it specifies that the punishment for causing a premature birth accidentally while in a fight with someone else is a fine of some amount of money determined by a court.

Hmmm. I thought I did cite 20-21. Also, there is nothing here about paying the slaves. Also, in the Old South, slaves could in fact be paid money by their masters. And if you historically study what the servants were often paid, it was essentially a slave wage. That way, the indentured servant could never earn enough to get free and would be your slave for life. The save exploitative kind of behavior happens today in teh US. One racket is this deal where young foreign girls have their way paid to American and will earn it back by being a maid for a family. In more than one case, they end up virtually in slavery. That is well documented. The same thing with the migrant workers. The abusive way they are treated amounts to outright slavery pure and simple. So don't give me this servant stuff. Anyhow, again, this discussion is getting way, way off topic. Let's get back to evolution.

 

[Chris B]

Why? Is Cornwall in Wales? Off topic, but I am curious.

If not insular mentality, then peninsular mentality. Once a kingdom, that idea has never quite vanished.
Conductor of train leaving Penzance for London (Paddington)
"We apologise for the late running of this train, which is due to signalling problems up in England."

It starts when the the river Tamar is crossed: Deb'n be summ'at of a furrin country.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, that isn't correct. Any serious biblical scholar will tell you that the OT did in fact sanctify slavery. Read Exod. 21. In the NT, read Paul.

It was the Doctor Evil 'riiiight'. I knew it was gibberish.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now just a minute here, sir. That isn't what Winston Churchill thought at all and you know it. We were late to the party, but you guys really did need us. There is no doubt about that. Those of you in Brittin sure needed a lot of our knittin'. And no, we definitely did not claim all the glory. Where did you get that idea? We bent over backwards to let de Gaulle be the first to march into liberated Paris, not us. Ah, well, typical Brit. Too proud and cocky to admit he needed help. Anyhow, great topic to discuss. However, we are getting way, way off topic here.

Spend more time on the internet and you'll definitely see many Americans say that they were the sole reason the Allies won WW2, with no regard to the British & Commonwealth forces or the Russians or the other countries that made up the Allies.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, so would you actually respond to me?

Your statement was that you do not see any connection between Religion and Science. Even though God Created BOTH Science and Religion.