Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You know that the "vet" in his screen name indicates that he's a military vet? If i recall correctly he stated that in the other thread.
I suppose you're canadian, but here in texas you're in some deep stew if you make fun of disabled military vets.
Personally I consider someone who knows something upside down as knowing it backwards, meaning they don't know it.AV, once again, showing how little his opinion is worth.
Personally my friends would enjoy a talk with AV. They like talking to anyone who is not spouting out racism or some such thing (and while you could argue some of his views suggest such things, he is not in fact spouting it out anywhere I see... of course, I could be wrong... but like always, give me evidence to back that up, aka a link to a post where he is being quite racist).Suppose we want to keep our friends?
They do not condemn "god" for anything. They are saying that the fictional character portrayed should have been condemned if he existed.
You remind me of a lot of people I know. I once won five Euchre tournaments in a row. If you play Euchre with me, you'll see me do stupid things like going alone without even looking at my cards first. Yet, everyone I talk to always knows someone who "lives for the game", but when I ask them to get together for a night of Euchre, guess what? I get, "I can't play very well," or, "I'm too busy", or "One of these nights..."
They say people who are blind can compensate by hearing better. If you think people like me are $1.98 worth of wasted chemicals, that's your prerogative --- and your problem.
And your reps!See, even just talking to AV improved my resume.
They do not condemn "god" for anything. They are saying that the fictional character portrayed should have been condemned if he existed.
I know things my friends have not a clue about. I can explain why it is impossible to have a search algorithm of O(1), but my friends don't even know what O(1) means. It is a question of if the information has been shared in the friendship or not.
And let me be equally plain that if your questions and remarks here are any indication of your conversations with your friends, then I'd say you guys need a class in Basic Theology.
No one, in my opinion, would say he has friends that know theology upside-down and inside-out on one hand, and wonder why the Bible supports slavery on the other.
You remind me of a lot of people I know. I once won five Euchre tournaments in a row. If you play Euchre with me, you'll see me do stupid things like going alone without even looking at my cards first. Yet, everyone I talk to always knows someone who "lives for the game", but when I ask them to get together for a night of Euchre, guess what? I get, "I can't play very well," or, "I'm too busy", or "One of these nights..."
This is starting to hurt my head....
They say people who are blind can compensate by hearing better. If you think people like me are $1.98 worth of wasted chemicals, that's your prerogative --- and your problem.
If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.Now, of course, my friends and I disagree, as I disagree with you. However that doesn't mean your points are in any way meaningful. Specifically because your point doesn't even have the inkling that the Hebrew word might allow, and is "commonly" used to mean slave.
Because it couldn't have anything to do with the (in)competence of the translators.If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.
If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.
Servant: (a person working in the service of another (especially in the household)) (SOURCE)
I'd like to see a proof of that
Seems entirely dependent on the structure of the data being searched.
If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.
If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.
The Hebrews didn't have slaves. These laws were written to prevent slavery, not indulge in it. And as far as your problem with how they ran things back then, here's a little excerpt from Adam Clarke on Exodus 21:7 ---Calling it anything else will be seen as mere squirming around instead of accepting that the human condition then was not perfect, and the Hebrews had slaves. Christians do themselves no favours when they indulge in semantical pretenses.
And if you have a problem with it after reading that, I guess you'll have to take it up with God, Himself.Adam Clarke's Commentary said:Verse 7 [If a man sell his daughter] This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress-when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.
Deuteronomy 15:15 said:And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.
The Hebrews didn't have slaves. These laws were written to prevent slavery, not indulge in it. And as far as your problem with how they ran things back then, here's a little excerpt from Adam Clarke on Exodus 21:7 ---And if you have a problem with it after reading that, I guess you'll have to take it up with God, Himself.
As for me, I shall reiterate, these laws were written to prevent slavery, not indulge in it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?