Scientific evidence and Bible prophecies.

[Brian2]

You're offering a false analogy. With more than 100 references to slavery, the Bible does not condemn the practice. But conscience, our moral intuition, allows us to feel that the practice of slavery is wrong.

The Bible and conscience are not saying the same thing in different ways.

The Bible recognised slavery as a practice of the time and even it seems as legitimate if done in the right way but also the Bible tells Christians to gain their freedom if possible and not to become slaves, and the Bible condemns the slave trade and puts them in a list with other undesirable practices.
It is interesting that we make ourselves slaves of people when we go into debt to them and have to slave our guts out for an employer every day.
It is a good thing that this form of slavery is governed by laws, as the slavery in the OT was also governed by laws.

1Tim 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1Cor 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

 

[gnostic]

It is easy to see that Isa 9:1-7 is about the Messiah because of the description of the child and of what He will do and about Jesus because of Galilee mentioned in verse 1.
The Jews saw the connection between the child in Isa 7 and in Isa 9 and the fact that "Emmenuel" appears in Isa 8:8 and Isa 8:10 helps us to see that Isa 7 to Isa 9 are part of a single prophecy.

Trinitarians call Him Emmanuel, God with us.

We call Him "God with us" because that is who He is.
Jesus promised to be with the Church till the end of the age and He is God.

Ah, you are just playing the name game, but relying on “meaning” of one’s name is not very reliable indication that Isaiah’s passages related to Jesus.

Like @Subduction Zone said, other than Matthew 1:23, none of the gospels and letters called Jesus by Immanuel, so Jesus didn’t actually fulfill this sign, especially when Jesus wasn’t involved in Ahaz’s war with the two kings and he wasn’t involved with Assyria intervention in the war, in which Immanuel was part of this sign of Isaiah 7:14-17.

You can believe what you like about Matthew 1, but Isaiah 7 & 8 weren’t even signs about any messiah.

 

[joe1776]

The Bible recognised slavery as a practice of the time and even it seems as legitimate if done in the right way...

Owning other humans as property to you seems legitimate if done the right way?

...and the Bible condemns the slave trade and puts them in a list with other undesirable practices.

Pope Pius IX and his bishops couldn't find anything in the Bible to condemn the practice. Abolitionists had to admit that they couldn't either.

It is interesting that we make ourselves slaves of people when we go into debt to them and have to slave our guts out for an employer every day.

No, it really is not interesting. This is called "arguing semantics." You are shifting to a different meaning of the word "slavery."

1Cor 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Are you claiming that the foregoing is a condemnation of the business of buying, selling and trading of slaves? If so, it doesn't read that way to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible recognised slavery as a practice of the time and even it seems as legitimate if done in the right way but also the Bible tells Christians to gain their freedom if possible and not to become slaves, and the Bible condemns the slave trade and puts them in a list with other undesirable practices.
It is interesting that we make ourselves slaves of people when we go into debt to them and have to slave our guts out for an employer every day.
It is a good thing that this form of slavery is governed by laws, as the slavery in the OT was also governed by laws.

1Tim 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1Cor 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

There were two types of slavery in the OT. There was the indentured servant type of slave. That usually applied to fellow Hebrews. They could only be enslaved for a limited period of time. Then there was also the chattel slavery almost identical to that of the old South. That usually applied to foreigners. But the OT did tell a person how to get around those laws and fool a fellow Hebrew into chattel slavery for the rest of his life, and of course the life of his children. Are you aware of the verses that explain how to do this?

 

[WonderingWorrier]

You're offering a false analogy. With more than 100 references to slavery, the Bible does not condemn the practice. But conscience, our moral intuition, allows us to feel that the practice of slavery is wrong.

The Bible and conscience are not saying the same thing in different ways.

I was not talking about slavery. I was talking about eating the flesh of man and drinking his blood is exactly the same as eating bread and drinking wine in the bible.

You have accused me of falsehood without reason and jumped to slavery and conscience.

Can you further explain your reasoning to me?
I can further explain mine to you.

Maybe the words have been misunderstood.

Are you sure that you can hear the three words corn ,oil, and wine in the bible?
"And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel" Hosea.


Are you sure that you can hear any of the words in the bible?
"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word". John


Perhaps the high and the low is repeated in different ways of words all saying the same thing.


Consider the bread as my flesh, the wine as my blood, and the oil as my bones.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Bread - Oil - Wine
Flesh - Bone - Blood

In the ways of the high and the low there is a middle way.

The way of the oil. Which could bring down the high and lift up the low.
It could put flesh and blood back to the bone.

Do you know what I'm saying? Probably not.
I'm trying to explain.


Im talking about the high and the low.
Do you want to talk about master and slave?

 

[Brian2]

Ah, you are just playing the name game, but relying on “meaning” of one’s name is not very reliable indication that Isaiah’s passages related to Jesus.

Like @Subduction Zone said, other than Matthew 1:23, none of the gospels and letters called Jesus by Immanuel, so Jesus didn’t actually fulfill this sign, especially when Jesus wasn’t involved in Ahaz’s war with the two kings and he wasn’t involved with Assyria intervention in the war, in which Immanuel was part of this sign of Isaiah 7:14-17.

You can believe what you like about Matthew 1, but Isaiah 7 & 8 weren’t even signs about any messiah.

Nobody whom we know of in Isaiah's time was named Emmanuel. "Emmanuel" I figure is meant to explain about a person, not be a literal name.
Ahaz and Judah were punished with Assyria for their lack of faith and obedience and Isaiah's child was a sign about that.
Isaiah's child may have been going to be Emmanuel but not the real Emmanuel would come later and be the child of Isa 9.
Isa seems to lament Emmanuel in Isa 8:8, but in verse 10 it is shown that God still would be with them. The plans of the nations would be thwarted. Then we read on and it is the coming child of Isa 9 who would be that Emmanuel and many Jews see him as Ahaz's son Hezekiah, but if your read Isa 9:1-7 in a more literal way and not figuratively the passage is Messianic and speaking about the one who would rule on the throne of David forever.

 

[Brian2]

Owning other humans as property to you seems legitimate if done the right way?

In Israel at the time it was allowed and was a legitimate part of the economy and along with other laws, did away with the need for social security system.

Pope Pius IX and his bishops couldn't find anything in the Bible to condemn the practice. Abolitionists had to admit that they couldn't either.
No, it really is not interesting. This is called "arguing semantics." You are shifting to a different meaning of the word "slavery."

I posted 1Tim 1:8 which condemns the practice of the slave trade.

Are you claiming that the foregoing is a condemnation of the business of buying, selling and trading of slaves? If so, it doesn't read that way to me.

1Cor 7:21 was not so much against the practice as showing that freedom was better if it was possible to achieve.
The attacking of the status quo in those days was not the job however. The spreading of the gospel was and the gospel message was one of equality and love for neighbour and when enough people became Christians and realised a more full meaning with the constraints of the status quo of the world, it became clear to some that slavery was against what God ultimately wanted, and others who were tainted more by the world refused to see that.

 

[Brian2]

There were two types of slavery in the OT. There was the indentured servant type of slave. That usually applied to fellow Hebrews. They could only be enslaved for a limited period of time. Then there was also the chattel slavery almost identical to that of the old South. That usually applied to foreigners. But the OT did tell a person how to get around those laws and fool a fellow Hebrew into chattel slavery for the rest of his life, and of course the life of his children. Are you aware of the verses that explain how to do this?

Slavery was a part of the economic system and accepted at the time and laws put in place for the protection of the slaves, no matter which class.
I know which laws you are referring to and see them as a logical extension of slaves as property.
I don't think it was as bad as you make out. Having the security of a rich master was no doubt important to people, including slaves and they could end up loving their master and not wanting to leave.
The buying of slaves from other countries I think was tolerated then and laws set up to protect those slaves.

 

[gnostic]

Nobody whom we know of in Isaiah's time was named Emmanuel. "Emmanuel" I figure is meant to explain about a person, not be a literal name.
Ahaz and Judah were punished with Assyria for their lack of faith and obedience and Isaiah's child was a sign about that.
Isaiah's child may have been going to be Emmanuel but not the real Emmanuel would come later and be the child of Isa 9.
Isa seems to lament Emmanuel in Isa 8:8, but in verse 10 it is shown that God still would be with them. The plans of the nations would be thwarted. Then we read on and it is the coming child of Isa 9 who would be that Emmanuel and many Jews see him as Ahaz's son Hezekiah, but if your read Isa 9:1-7 in a more literal way and not figuratively the passage is Messianic and speaking about the one who would rule on the throne of David forever.

Again, you are making up a scenario to suit your faith.

Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew, never bother to quote the whole sign of Isaiah’s original passage. The gospel only quote one verse, but chose to ignore verses 15, 16 & 17, which was the actual sign.

Isaiah’s declaration started at verse 13 - “Hear then, O house of David...”, with the opening quotation mark, which was later followed by then ended at verse 17, about the sign regarding to “...the king of Assyria” followed by the closing quotation mark.

Note the starting & closing quotation marks (red), below:

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

The sign was never about Immanuel’s birth, it was all about WHEN the King of Assyria would defeat the two kings (7:16-17) about the time would know how to distinguish right from wrong, and able to eat honey and curds (7:15).

So in essence, Immanuel was only timeframe of when the Assyrian King would intervene.

Your talk of Jesus being “the real Emmanuel” and Emmanuel “not be a literal name” is nothing but desperate and utter apologetic BS.

Crap is crap, and that what I see in your propaganda interpretations.

Do you know why creationists have such bad repute?

They are never honest with others and never honest to themselves, and are willing to make up any pathetic excuses to bolster their faith. They give Christianity a bad name.

 

[joe1776]

In Israel at the time it was allowed and was a legitimate part of the economy and along with other laws, did away with the need for social security system.



I posted 1Tim 1:8 which condemns the practice of the slave trade.



1Cor 7:21 was not so much against the practice as showing that freedom was better if it was possible to achieve.
The attacking of the status quo in those days was not the job however. The spreading of the gospel was and the gospel message was one of equality and love for neighbour and when enough people became Christians and realised a more full meaning with the constraints of the status quo of the world, it became clear to some that slavery was against what God ultimately wanted, and others who were tainted more by the world refused to see that.

Brian, I don't think your argument will persuade unbiased, intelligent minds that the Bible condemns legal slavery. Bear in mind that the Bible and slavery coexisted for many centuries before the abolition movement began to take hold around the year 1700.

The Christians who favored abolition, in 1700 and later, did so because all humans are gifted with conscience (moral intuition) that has been moving us to make moral progress on the equality theme: Equal rights for slaves and the children of slaves, equal rights for women, equal rights for homosexuals, equal education for the children of the poor, and so on.

 

[Hawkins]

I am curious about archeological evidence surrounding Bible prophecies. Is there any evidence that a supposed prophecy was written at a date prior to the prophesied event? or vice versa?
When I was doing my own research a few years ago ,i.e. googling stuff, I found that scholars would date the writing of prophetic books based on the prophecy itself. “Well, it was supposedly prophesying about this historical event, so it was written after said event.” is the line of reasoning I’ve generally seen used, as opposed to archeological evidence let’s say.
I get it, a scholar is going to approach the Bible as they would any other mythical book; with skepticism. But if one looks at the Bible with an open mind, they should entertain the possibility that the prophecies were written prior to said events. Then said person should examine the evidence from both sides, which is what I am intending on doing.
I figured I could google stuff, ooooor I can make a thread on RF and see if any of you fine individuals have opinions on the topic. I’m still gonna google, but I’ve done that before. RF is generally pretty resourceful.

Apples and oranges. Did you ever eat any eggs before the age of 2? This is a piece of history. The only way for such a piece of history to be confirmed is by means of an eyewitness such as your own mother. This is the nature of historical individual activities. Why do you even expect archeology can help in any way.

That said. The primary usage of prophecies is for an authority which is Israel as the chosen people to reckon a prophet (an eyewitness of God with the proof that he can fore-telling which other humans can't) and write down the related testimony. While a prophet predicts a near event, God made use of the same prophecy for a far event, such that Christians today can strengthen their faith. Prophecies are never intended to work on someone outside of His Elect. They have the effect that the believers will get the abundance while others will get none. You can take them as a faith-strengthening medicine, while only needed by believers (or God's sheep as the wannabes).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Slavery was a part of the economic system and accepted at the time and laws put in place for the protection of the slaves, no matter which class.
I know which laws you are referring to and see them as a logical extension of slaves as property.
I don't think it was as bad as you make out. Having the security of a rich master was no doubt important to people, including slaves and they could end up loving their master and not wanting to leave.
The buying of slaves from other countries I think was tolerated then and laws set up to protect those slaves.

Why on Earth would it have been any better than the chattel slavery of the South? There were laws in some states that limited what could be done to slaves. It does not appear to be that much different from the "protections" offered in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody whom we know of in Isaiah's time was named Emmanuel. "Emmanuel" I figure is meant to explain about a person, not be a literal name.
Ahaz and Judah were punished with Assyria for their lack of faith and obedience and Isaiah's child was a sign about that.
Isaiah's child may have been going to be Emmanuel but not the real Emmanuel would come later and be the child of Isa 9.
Isa seems to lament Emmanuel in Isa 8:8, but in verse 10 it is shown that God still would be with them. The plans of the nations would be thwarted. Then we read on and it is the coming child of Isa 9 who would be that Emmanuel and many Jews see him as Ahaz's son Hezekiah, but if your read Isa 9:1-7 in a more literal way and not figuratively the passage is Messianic and speaking about the one who would rule on the throne of David forever.

And Jesus is not called Emmanuel anywhere in the Bible. He is only called that due to the prophecy after the Bible was written. That is why it is a failed prophecy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Slavery was a part of the economic system and accepted at the time and laws put in place for the protection of the slaves, no matter which class.
I know which laws you are referring to and see them as a logical extension of slaves as property.
I don't think it was as bad as you make out. Having the security of a rich master was no doubt important to people, including slaves and they could end up loving their master and not wanting to leave.
The buying of slaves from other countries I think was tolerated then and laws set up to protect those slaves.

Owning human beings as property, beating them as long as they don't die within a few days, and passing your property down to your kids is not as "bad as you make out?"
Ummm ... yeah it is.

 

[Brian2]

Owning human beings as property, beating them as long as they don't die within a few days, and passing your property down to your kids is not as "bad as you make out?"
Ummm ... yeah it is.

Those laws have to be seen in the context of the times and in the context of the rest of the law and how God wanted Israel to treat all people.
For a start it is not as bad as you are trying to make it. It is trying to bring some protection into it for the slave in the context of the master not wanting the slave to die or be injured so that he cannot work and owning the slave.
In a time when there were no prisoner of war camps slavery was a good way of dealing with pow s and in a time of no Government social security slavery was a good way to deal with poor people who wanted to survive or who could not pay what they owed.
All peoples in that time had slaves and the law brought some humanity into it.
It is interesting that you would judge the past by today's standards if you think that ethics is a matter of agreement in a social setting. Do you think that your moral code is absolute and 100% correct for all times and places?

 

[Brian2]

And Jesus is not called Emmanuel anywhere in the Bible. He is only called that due to the prophecy after the Bible was written. That is why it is a failed prophecy.

Even Matthew in Matthew 1 mentions the prophecy about His name being called Emanuel and says that the child (Jesus ) would be named Jesus. This is within a few lines of each other. It is plain that "Emmanuel" was not meant to be a proper name. It is the meaning that is important,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and Jesus is called "God with us" and "Emmanuel" by those who believe it, because that is who He is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those laws have to be seen in the context of the times and in the context of the rest of the law and how God wanted Israel to treat all people.
For a start it is not as bad as you are trying to make it. It is trying to bring some protection into it for the slave in the context of the master not wanting the slave to die or be injured so that he cannot work and owning the slave.
In a time when there were no prisoner of war camps slavery was a good way of dealing with pow s and in a time of no Government social security slavery was a good way to deal with poor people who wanted to survive or who could not pay what they owed.
All peoples in that time had slaves and the law brought some humanity into it.
It is interesting that you would judge the past by today's standards if you think that ethics is a matter of agreement in a social setting. Do you think that your moral code is absolute and 100% correct for all times and places?

But that is not what is being done. We are not judging the past. It is the supposedly all powerful God of the Bible that is being judged.

 

[Brian2]

Why on Earth would it have been any better than the chattel slavery of the South? There were laws in some states that limited what could be done to slaves. It does not appear to be that much different from the "protections" offered in the Bible.

Slavery was a legitimate thing in Biblical times.
There were laws for protection of all types of slaves and that included slaves that were bought from other nations. But that part of the law imo was there because God knew that this would happen,,,,,,,,,,, just like divorce was allowed because God knew it would happen anyway.
The law and the prophets was one thing but with Jesus we see God's truth coming where all are equal in Christ and the slave trade is classed as an evil practice even if the institution of slavery is not something specifically spoken against,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just as the other 100 common social practices of the day were not specifically spoken against. That would come in it's day, when people were ready to hear the truth just as other accepted practices also disappeared over time due to the teachings of Christianity.

 

[Brian2]

Brian, I don't think your argument will persuade unbiased, intelligent minds that the Bible condemns legal slavery. Bear in mind that the Bible and slavery coexisted for many centuries before the abolition movement began to take hold around the year 1700.

The Christians who favored abolition, in 1700 and later, did so because all humans are gifted with conscience (moral intuition) that has been moving us to make moral progress on the equality theme: Equal rights for slaves and the children of slaves, equal rights for women, equal rights for homosexuals, equal education for the children of the poor, and so on.

Moral progress is educated by teachings about morals.
But how do you know that your morals are any better than those of people who lived 500 or 1000 years ago?

 

[paarsurrey]

Scientific evidence and Bible prophecies.

Is there any scientific evidence that Jesus' prophecy of showing "Sign of Jonah" got
fulfilled, please? Right?

Regards