As I told you before...claims made in the Bible are not evidence for the said claims. You have not yet presented any evidence regarding the historicity of the Biblical chronology upto Adam. Maybe your memory is failing you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
You explained that you are ignoring the entire description. You explained that only 1 word matters to you.
But does it? Let me show you something. What is the best, absoultely undeniable example of slavery in the Hebrew bible? It's leviticus 25, correct? No one, no one can deny it. The foreigners can be bought and are retained forever. Upward social mobility is prohibited for them. Harsh labor is permitted. Let's look at what word they use there for the purchase.
... of them shall you "קנ" male slaves and female slaves.
Now lets look back to Exodus 21:7
Now if a man "מכר" his daughter as a maidservant...
They're not the same, are they? Not even close. This difference is especially apparent if a person *carefully* reads the story of Joseph. he is transferred (מכר) multiple times, but ultimately purchased (קנה) by potifar. People struggle with this part of the story, but, it's easy if a person just sticks to the text.Because it's a common misconception that the Torah permits the selling of a daughter into slavery. And it's wrong to misrepresent another person's religion. And hopefully it will cultivate some humility among those who sling mud.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Human beings are being purchased. And sold. That's slavery.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
But not the daughter. Can you refute a single thing I've said regarding this?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
How about this? I asked it previously from someone else, but never got an answer.
When I proposed to my wife, I gave her an engagement ring. She accepted it. Did she prostitute herself? Was the exchange of a precious metal a "purchase"?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The father sold the daughter. So the daughter too.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The more apt analogy would be that you gave her father an engagement ring and he accepted it in exchange for his daughter.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Was any value in any sense exchanged between the farther and the man and if so in which direction? Not as per the daughter and the man.
nPeace
Veteran Member
False. I used you as an example. You are not God.
You don't even have to be the cook who burnt the food.
Try and understand how to apply the example. God is not the cook.
You made a wrong assumption, and a wrong application. A mind thing, I guess.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I direct persons yo it, and they never go, but just prance around, asking where is it.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
This is a claim not rebuttal.
- There is no money exchanged
- The word in hebrew does not always mean purchased
- There is different word used for slave
- There is a different word used for purchasing slaves
- The context does not describe a property purchase
- You have admitted that the details don't matter ( IOW your judgement is compromised )
Last edited:
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
You didn't answer the question.
Is the exchange of precious metal always a "purchase"?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So what are the other meanings and can we figure out which one is meant include "sale"?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The first definition is "to sell". The second defintion is "to transfer"
The best one can do is use context.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Thanks. How should we understand transfer?
A note - I don't condemn other people's moral systems. I just in state if I like it or not and if I would follow it or not.
We Never Know
No Slack
Did that precious metal allow you to own your wife?
That's a long answer. I'll summarize it in a few words. I have training in interpreting data both professionally with the practice of internal medicine, and in my chief avocation, contract bridge. They both require dispassionate open-mindedness to be successful, and I have had success at both.
What data are you using to conclude that the so-called critic is wrong and you are correct?
Same answer as above. It's an acquired skill. I know how to read and evaluate text critically and dispassionately and without prejudice. I'll bet that you can do so as well. I've never read anything from you that I would call partial before this thread, although you write a lot about theology, and I gloss over that. You're being an apologist for biblical slavery here, which is indicative of a desire to defend the moral status of scripture where others see it as indefensible and don't find your arguments compelling.
My understanding of human nature and the persons words. It's not difficult to tell when somebody is trying to sanitize something.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The place where agreement can and should happen is about what is written on the page. That's where I stop. There are no right and wrong opinions. So, for me, it's about including details. More data is better. Less data is worse. That's how I judge correct/incorrect. It's literally volume of facts.
I can tell that a critic is biased when they ignore facts. Ignoring words on a page. That's really the same thing that critics do with the so-called apologist. They start listing verses, more and more verses, "how can you have a positive opinion in light of this, and this, and this, and this..." If the critic is right, and the verses mean what they say they mean, then, the critic is right. If those verses have moderating elements in the same scripture that is being quoted, then those verses get eliminated. So it's pretty simple. Or at least it is to me.
When in this thread have I apologized, or condoned slavery?
I have taken 2 positions. In our conversation, my position is, skepticism is warranted about the daugter described in Exodus 21:7. You're not looking at the source, and the translations in english do not describe slavery. Those two FACTS should be enough for an impartial observer to acknowledge "I don't really know what is being said here." Skepticism is not apologetics.
The other conversations I'm having involve looking at the details of the text and trying to show that Exodus 21:7-11 does NOT describe slavery. That is not condoning biblical slavery.
And, I admitted that biblical slavery exists, undeniably, in Leviticus 25. So that's not apologizing, it's not condoning. It's a fact and I admit it.
Indefensible? Let me ask you a question, what does the scripture say, in english, is the reason for annihilating the 7 unholy nations? Do you know? People make a huge deal about the genocide, but, they usually have no clue what the scripture actually says about it.
If it cannot be answered without looking it up, how can you, or anyone claim it's indefensible? Maybe they're a total pacificst. OK. The tibetan monks get steamrolled by china, and a pacifist would permit it. Might = right, i guess. And WW2? No one should have intervened? Hmmmmmm. Interesting point of view, not my point of view, kind of strange, actually.
So, all I'm doing is slowly but surely directing people to the story that they themselves are critisizing and saying, "But it doesn't say what you think it's saying" And "You're ignoring the details which explain it"
The problem is, pretty much the only people focusing on the details are religious people. Those religious people are assumed to be dishonest. That's bigotry.
If it's dirty, it shouldn't be cleaned? This is something I addressed in a post to @blü 2 .
Even if for past 2000 years people have translated and interpretted the Bible as permitting slavery, if the words don't say it, what is wrong with correcting the record? The tranlsations and interpretations were done by men, primitive men. Why are they the authority? The words themself should be the authority. I'm not saying "slavery is cool, refreshing, and delicious". I'm not saying, "Let's all get ourselves some slaves, Yeehaw!" I am saying a father cannot sell his daughter into slavery, cannot marry her off without her consent. I'm saying she is not expected to be "pleasing" her new custodian, her husband, master, whatever.
The only reason to oppose this is if a person has a negative opinion which they DESIRE to maintain. They benefit from the idea of biblical slavery. They are rewarded for beleiving a father sells his daughter into slavery. Without that reward, without that desire, this should be a welcome correction.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The words I keep using in english are "transfer of custody". Do you have something similar to the word "custody" in your home country?
When I purchase something, it is transferred from one person's custody to my custody, from one person's sphere of authority to another person's sphere of authority. It's an amazon delivery, or perhaps, buying groceries. The purchased item started out in one person's domain, and ends up in my domain.
Evidence in a court of law, has to have a documented chain of custody. That chain describes who was responsible for it all throughout it's various travels and transfers. From one person, agency, to the next.
For children, when a parent is unsuitable, the child's care is transferred from one parent to another parent. When a child flies unaccompanied by their parent, they are transferred to the custody of an airline employee during their travel until they reach their destination, where they are transferred into the custody, care, and responsibility of another responsible adult.