Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is Slavery Moral?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cvanwey" data-source="post: 72873049" data-attributes="member: 409550"><p><span style="color: #0000ff">I'm not sure if you read my last several responses, or if maybe you are misunderstanding my responses, or other? I feel as though I stated the exact same thing many times now. But then, for some reason, receive answers which do not address my replies? So let me re-iterate it again one more time, hopefully with crystal clear clarity.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Exodus 21:1-11 speaks of 'Hebrew servants'. Okay, great. If a Jew 'opts' to reach an agreement to be as such for 6-7 years, fine... (even though there is a <u>life-time loop hole</u> clause attached for providing the servant with a family).</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Exodus 21:12-36, however, <u>no longer</u> speaks about such a topic, and changes the subject, (i.e.) 'Personal Injuries', as they pertain to general 'persons', 'parents', 'slaves', 'pregnant women', and 'bulls'.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">So to recap... Exodus 21:1-11 speaks of 'Hebrew servants', not 'slaves' (they are different). It is not until Exodus 21:20, and beyond, where the Bible speaks about 'slaves' in this chapter.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">There are clearly differing rules, pertaining to clearly differing scenarios, between 'Jewish servants' and 'slaves'.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Your response makes little sense... The vast majority of American Bible readers are not fluent in Aramaic or Greek, and would not even know to study accordingly. So you honestly think all American translators are doing a poor job at appropriate translation, and/or are deliberately misleading English speakers? You honestly think that because I stop at an English translated version, I'm doing it wrong? Furthermore, many American translations, I would only assume, aspired to reach the <u>best</u> translation possible (i.e.) NIV, KJV, etc.... And yet, you are <u>still</u> asking <u>me</u> to come up with <u>my</u> justification, as to why the Bible actually references non-Jewish slaves as being kept for life, referred to non-Jewish slaves as property for life, and beating them just short of death in two days for life? I'm truly vexed?</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">You appear to be attempting to switch the burden of proof. I'm afraid the burden of proof actually rests entirely upon <u>you</u>. I read the Bible verses as axiomatic. They appear very clear and straight forward. When one reads such verses, they read as follows:</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">- If you are not a Jew, one is condoned to be a life time slave </span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">- If you are not a Jew, one is condoned to be property for life</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">- If you are not a Jew, one can be beaten for life.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">- If you are not a Jew, one can be inherited as property</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Please demonstrate my mistake, and how you objectively know this? So ultimately, I choose to adhere to the verses in the Bible themselves, and choose to adhere to the sought-after translated versions in which all English versions use. And yes, each translation uses some differing words for these verses. However, they ALL convey the <u>very same over all message</u>, in regards to slavery, property, beating, and for life.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cvanwey, post: 72873049, member: 409550"] [COLOR=#0000ff]I'm not sure if you read my last several responses, or if maybe you are misunderstanding my responses, or other? I feel as though I stated the exact same thing many times now. But then, for some reason, receive answers which do not address my replies? So let me re-iterate it again one more time, hopefully with crystal clear clarity. Exodus 21:1-11 speaks of 'Hebrew servants'. Okay, great. If a Jew 'opts' to reach an agreement to be as such for 6-7 years, fine... (even though there is a [U]life-time loop hole[/U] clause attached for providing the servant with a family). Exodus 21:12-36, however, [U]no longer[/U] speaks about such a topic, and changes the subject, (i.e.) 'Personal Injuries', as they pertain to general 'persons', 'parents', 'slaves', 'pregnant women', and 'bulls'. So to recap... Exodus 21:1-11 speaks of 'Hebrew servants', not 'slaves' (they are different). It is not until Exodus 21:20, and beyond, where the Bible speaks about 'slaves' in this chapter. There are clearly differing rules, pertaining to clearly differing scenarios, between 'Jewish servants' and 'slaves'. Your response makes little sense... The vast majority of American Bible readers are not fluent in Aramaic or Greek, and would not even know to study accordingly. So you honestly think all American translators are doing a poor job at appropriate translation, and/or are deliberately misleading English speakers? You honestly think that because I stop at an English translated version, I'm doing it wrong? Furthermore, many American translations, I would only assume, aspired to reach the [U]best[/U] translation possible (i.e.) NIV, KJV, etc.... And yet, you are [U]still[/U] asking [U]me[/U] to come up with [U]my[/U] justification, as to why the Bible actually references non-Jewish slaves as being kept for life, referred to non-Jewish slaves as property for life, and beating them just short of death in two days for life? I'm truly vexed?[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]You appear to be attempting to switch the burden of proof. I'm afraid the burden of proof actually rests entirely upon [U]you[/U]. I read the Bible verses as axiomatic. They appear very clear and straight forward. When one reads such verses, they read as follows: - If you are not a Jew, one is condoned to be a life time slave - If you are not a Jew, one is condoned to be property for life - If you are not a Jew, one can be beaten for life. - If you are not a Jew, one can be inherited as property Please demonstrate my mistake, and how you objectively know this? So ultimately, I choose to adhere to the verses in the Bible themselves, and choose to adhere to the sought-after translated versions in which all English versions use. And yes, each translation uses some differing words for these verses. However, they ALL convey the [U]very same over all message[/U], in regards to slavery, property, beating, and for life.[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is Slavery Moral?
Top
Bottom