Originally posted by karoly aczelperhaps you can point out these contradictions Karoly, for in almost every instance, they are readily and easily reconciled to the text, and please do not do as our friend ringwett has done, simply goggling the bible and contradictions, 🙂
Ok then . Persist with the 'harmony' of the bible as you see it.
If you can see harmony in that convoluted book you are a better man than I🙂
Laws governing slave-master relationships.
Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. Whereas the non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son (Le 25:44-46), the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his servitude or in the Jubilee year, depending upon which came first. During the time of his servitude the Hebrew slave was to be treated as a hired labourer. (Ex 21:2; Le 25:10; De 15:12) A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery to an alien resident, to a member of an alien resident’s family, or to a settler could be repurchased at any time, either by himself or by one having the right of repurchase. The redemption price was based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee year or until the seventh year of servitude. (Le 25:47-52; De 15:12) When granting a Hebrew slave his freedom, the master was to give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman. (De 15:13-15) If a slave had come in with a wife, the wife went out with him. However, if the master had given him a wife (evidently a foreign woman who would not be entitled to freedom in the seventh year of servitude), she and any children by her remained the property of the master. In such a case the Hebrew slave could choose to remain with his master. His ear would then be pierced with an awl to indicate that he would continue in servitude to time indefinite.—Ex 21:2-6; De 15:16, 17.
Female Hebrew slaves.
Certain special regulations applied to a female Hebrew slave. She could be taken as a concubine by the master or designated as a wife for his son. When designated as a wife for the master’s son, the Hebrewess was to be treated with the due right of daughters. Even if the son took another wife, there was to be no diminishing of her sustenance, clothing, and marriage due. A failure on the son’s part in this respect entitled the woman to her freedom without the payment of a redemption price. If the master sought to have a Hebrewess redeemed, he was not permitted to accomplish this by selling her to foreigners.—Ex 21:7-11.
Protections and privileges.
The Law protected slaves from brutalities. A slave was to be set at liberty if mistreatment by the master resulted in the loss of a tooth or an eye. As the usual value for a slave was 30 shekels (compare Ex 21:32), his liberation would have meant considerable loss to the master and, therefore, would have served as a strong deterrent against abuse. Although a master could beat his slave, the slave, depending upon the decision of the judges, was to be avenged if he died under his master’s beating. However, if the slave lingered on for a day or two before dying—this indicating that the master had not intended to kill the slave but to discipline him—he was not to be avenged. (Ex 21:20, 21, 26, 27; Le 24:17) Also, it would appear that for the master to have been considered free of guilt the beating could not have been administered with a lethal instrument, as that would have signified intent to kill. (Compare Nu 35:16-18.) Therefore, if a slave lingered on for a day or two, there would be reasonable question as to whether the death resulted from the chastisement. A beating with a rod, for example, would not normally be fatal, as is shown by the statement at Proverbs 23:13: “Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die.”
Certain privileges were granted to slaves by the terms of the Law. As all male slaves were circumcised (Ex 12:44; compare Ge 17:12), they could eat the Passover, and slaves of the priest could eat holy things. (Ex 12:43, 44; Le 22:10, 11) Slaves were exempted from working on the Sabbath. (Ex 20:10; De 5:14) During the Sabbath year they were entitled to eat of the growth from spilled kernels and from the unpruned vine. (Le 25:5, 6) They were to share in the rejoicing associated with the sacrificing at the sanctuary and the celebration of the festivals.—De 12:12; 16:11, 14.
Originally posted by josephwOf Jewish descent surely and possibly members of a sect of the Jewish religion, but also members of the Christian religion, or did they not actually believe in Christ?
Technically, the New Testament was written by Jews, except for Luke possibly, who may have been a Greek.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust as i thought Robster couldn't get any more crackers......he's now defending slavery.
Laws governing slave-master relationships.
Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. Whereas the non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son (Le 25:44-46), the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of ...[text shortened]... with the sacrificing at the sanctuary and the celebration of the festivals.—De 12:12; 16:11, 14.
Keep them coming Robbie.
Originally posted by rwingettLol, dear friends, what is a man supposed to do, just let everyone stomp all over his sacred text with size ten Doc Martins, I don't think so! Also I have Bobby Fischer as one of my clients 🙂
Press him hard enough and he will defend genocide as well.
i produce this for your perusal,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6723980.ece
let those theophobes try it with aversion of the koran and see if they are as quick to deface a sacred text, bunch of pansies venting their lack of anything to the contrary on an easy target.
i had a real chuckle, the story of Ruth and Naomi is to be interpreted as Lesbian Gay love story, haha, the scriptures are correct, they have come to be past all moral sense!
Originally posted by rwingettI dont know why people think its necessary to defend the OT which is just a history of the Jews, which was bloody and included some of the worst atrocities by our standards today. Neither can I understand why people think its necessary to claim the Bible contains no contradictions. Its does. And there is no requirement for followers of Christ to defend the Bible. Must be an ego thing.
Press him hard enough and he will defend genocide as well.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSomething is missing from your abiblty to reason.
Lol, dear friends, what is a man supposed to do, just let everyone stomp all over his sacred text with size ten Doc Martins, I don't think so! Also I have Bobby Fischer as one of my clients 🙂
i produce this for your perusal,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6723980.ece
let those theophobes try it with aversion of the ...[text shortened]... an Gay love story, haha, the scriptures are correct, they have come to be past all moral sense!
Sacred text does not mean Perfect text.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat are you supposed to do? Ermm............here's a thought, maybe you shouldn't defend slavery. Controversial i know, but i think it's the morally correct choice. Don't you?
Lol, dear friends, what is a man supposed to do, just let everyone stomp all over his sacred text with size ten Doc Martins, I don't think so! Also I have Bobby Fischer as one of my clients 🙂
i produce this for your perusal,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6723980.ece
let those theophobes try it with aversion of the ...[text shortened]... sacred text, bunch of pansies venting their lack of anything to the contrary on an easy target.
Bobby Fischer, genius on the chess board, lunatic elsewhere. I don't think you'd really want him as a defence of your position, unless it's chess related.
Originally posted by Rajk999Christ states of Gods word, 'your word is truth', are we to dismiss this claim off hand, i dont think so Raji Baji!
I dont know why people think its necessary to defend the OT which is just a history of the Jews, which was bloody and included some of the worst atrocities by our standards today. Neither can I understand why people think its necessary to claim the Bible contains no contradictions. Its does. And there is no requirement for followers of Christ to defend the Bible. Must be an ego thing.
Originally posted by Proper Knobshouldn't defend it, my dear sir, is this not indicative of the corrosion of British society, of our standards, of the empire, our sense of fair play, its simply not cricket not to be allowed a defence! As for Fischer, i will continue to defend his honour.
What are you supposed to do? Ermm............here's a thought, maybe you shouldn't defend slavery. Controversial i know, but i think it's the morally correct choice. Don't you?
Bobby Fischer, genius on the chess board, lunatic elsewhere. I don't think you'd really want him as a defence of your position, unless it's chess related.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou continually make an idiot of yourself by defending the garbage that the JWs call doctrine.
Christ states of Gods word, 'your word is truth', are we to dismiss this claim off hand, i dont think so Raji Baji!
You similarly make an idiot of yourself if you try to defend the history of the Jews. There is nothing to defend. Thats their history. It was bloody and full of ethnic cleansing, slavery, murder, adultery, etc. Its all there. Nothing to defend.
Originally posted by Proper Knobnope, these things must be viewed in their historical and social context and juxtaposed with other systems, and a comparison made, so as a correct evaluation may be ascertained, for example why don't we compere the treatment meted out to Roman slaves and those governing with biblical principles, that should be enough to sober you up! once again your attempts to simplify the matter would result in a self incriminating statement, but i not buying it, noobster me old son!
So are you claiming slavery is acceptable if the practise is followed by the rules set in the Bible?
Originally posted by Rajk999oh dear, more opinion masquerading as truth, give up the guise Raji Baji, and take up flower arranging instead.
You continually make an idiot of yourself by defending the garbage that the JWs call doctrine.
You similarly make an idiot of yourself if you try to defend the history of the Jews. There is nothing to defend. Thats their history. It was bloody and full of ethnic cleansing, slavery, murder, adultery, etc. Its all there. Nothing to defend.