The new testament and slavery.

.

 

They didn't just insult a prophet. They laughed at his pain and threatened his life.

How much damage do you think two tiny female bears could do to 42 adults? The bears in the region are especially small.

Also, why would the writer make note that they were females instead of just saying they were two bears? Perhaps to demonstrate their size and the level of threat.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XGFzOyaGw

 

It was used to describe a 28 year old so it could be a youngin' or it could mean an adult. I got with them being adults.

Thanks for quoting that again, but did you overlook the fact that the word little children could have been a mistranslation since the word used for children is the Hebrew word naar which was used to describe a full grown adult? Don't forget that the Hebrew language is very versatile and one word can be used in a broad way.

 

Firstly, thanks for the kind words

I would say a lot was answered already in this thread, but I'll say that 'slaves' were given rights and were freed after they were capable to live on their own. Many foreigners were accepted into the community but they had masters not unlike Alfred from the Batman comics It's not like they have a welfare system back then. What could someone who is in need do and how could those that have help them? The people were still learning how to help which was better than all nations around them.

 

.

 

First, These Scriptures are not talking about slavery, they are talking about the relationship between a government and it's people.

Once again as I pointed out the Scripture you quoted is talking about the relationship between a government and it's people, not slavery.

Also if you could read, you would have seen that, yes, although it talks about intermarriage, you would have seen the there are also other things mentioned. You obviously missed why God counseled against foreign wives. "because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods" and why was that such a bad thing, let's look at just Molech, his worship involved child sacrifice as did many of the god's of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites.

Interestingly, David also had foreign wives but God did not get upset about that, so maybe God's anger wasn't about intermarriage after all and perhaps about what I said; since God here says; you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, it would seem plain that Solomon was not doing what God told him to do, to me that would include the "slavery" you say was going on. Interestingly intermarriage was only one "decree" and yet God talks about decrees as in many.

The only "Amateur mistake" is your not having any clue what the Bible actually says.

As I pointed out, there is no other evidence than these statements, to show that Solomon ever did any thing of the kind. Solomon's son did not have to be telling the truth and the Bible could just be recording the lies that were actually said by these ones.

But even so, I also argued on the basis that it was true and pointed out that perhaps the true cruelty of his rulership happened after he fell away from true worship.

Yes for you.

I did but perhaps it would be good for you to read others posts as well.

Although the Bible does use the term forced labor, nothing you describe is found in the Bible. Although what you describe may have happened among those who did not engage in true worship, those did engage in true worship would have followed the laws about how to deal with "slaves" which would precluded any such mistreatment.

But let's suppose the their complains were not exaggerated and that Solomon was a "cruel" ruler that put heavy burdens on his people. Let's see if God was in favor, No, as I just pointed out such treatment was precluded.

I quoted a scripture that says that God was displeased with Solomon for having not kept his covenant(more than intermarriages) and my decrees(more than intermarriages), which I commanded you.

Yep, your biases do show through but I don't mind, I can work around them.

So what is your point? We know there were "slaves" in Israel, we just disagree on what that means.

So what is your point? Your prejudice makes you see a large hoop shaped earing attached to your lower lip which was used to pull you when you feel from exhaustion, where none exists.

 

Lets not forget "God hates fags" too...such a loving religion. Just remember, gay people...that if you ever want to save yourself from the fires of hell, you have to repent and beg forgiveness from your lord and savior...

Romans 1:24-27
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degradings of their bodies with one another...
26: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion..."

Some of the things in this book...I swear.

 

So many who have no clue what the Bible actually says, condemn it for things it doesn't say.

 

.

 

.

 

Incorrect, friend.



Deut. 20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens. If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.(what kind of rights is it to be forced to marry someone. If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment." (EX.21.7-11)

ALSO, the rights and the freedom, the little that some slaves has, seems to be limited to Hebre/Israelite slaves.

"When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone." (EX.21.2-4)

Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

It's one thing to offer someone work. It's another to gain rights and ownership to the person. Also, once a slave, you must serve for 7 years. Then, you can be freed. However, if you have a family your wife and your children must stay and you must leave. This is interesting because on the one hand the forced labor must suck but on the other leaving your family sucks even more.

I still hold that Jesus never mention slavery because technically they weren't considered people yet and so the rules of 'love thy neighbour' and love others the way you would want them to love you, NEED NOT apply to slaves.

It then raises questions about Jesus's true intentions and the nature of the god of the bible.

Which I simply don't believe in, for other reasons than its lude treatment of individuals.

 

I's hard to reply to your thread, since you ran your reply together with my post. I think a /Quote somewhere would help. But I'll try to do cut and paste.

That's certainly not true. There's little evidence that he did exist, but hardly "plenty" that he didn't.

What a puzzling question, in so many ways. Most Evangelical Christians think that He can and he will.

That you'd have to take up with God. My guess is that it would help to be receptive to the possibility.
There's also the question of what counts as an experience.

I don't think the Bible was ever intended as a "self help book", but it can be helpful in getting a focus on spiritual priorities, which to me is the important thing in getting through all those complexities while keeping my sanity. Science does wonderful things, but in that area it ain't worth shit.

 

.

 

The "fags" topic is a bit of a digression, but I couldn't find the "God hates fags" quotation in my Bible. As for Romans 1, the main topic is idolatry, and the behavior described is lust. My Bible doesn't address the subject of homosexuality in general. It seems to come up mainly in the context of specific practices of promiscuity, domination, and especially temple and shrine prostitution. Paul was preaching in Rome, where the cult of Cybelle and Attis was flourishing in which transgendered sexuality was considered normative and temple prostitution central to the worship service. Roman law was changed to accommodate these religious practices which many considered a threat to Roman family values. And then there's Romans 2 telling us not to pass judgment on others.

 

No problem.

What would stop an ancient gang from going outside the city especially if they were following Jezebel's orders? They would be outside, no?

In some translations of the Bible, there are numerous translation errors. One of them is the use of the word hades in the place of Sheol. The two words denote entirely different things. Hades being part of Greek mythology and Sheol basically being a state of the dead, awaiting resurrection which includes the righteous and unrighteous (according to God). There is also translator bias of trinitarians as in 1 John 5:7

Here is that verse in two separate Bible translations:

King James Version
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Here is what the New American Standard Bible says

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Those seem very different to me. Which one seems more likely to be the correct translation?

Maybe you're being too trusting in the translators Personally, I use different Bible translations to balance that all out.

Being scared off doesn't seem harsh to me considering the circumstances. Not to mention that man was going through a process of learning the ways of God.

Btw, the same word used for tore is the same word used to describe parting or dividing of water.

Exodus 14:16
"Pick up your staff and raise your hand over the sea. Divide the water so the Israelites can walk through the middle of the sea on dry ground."

baqa`

 

My problem, Def, is that your explanation draws on such an elaborate scenario of circumstances that aren't mentioned in the text. There is nothing about a gang sent by Jezebl. Were they carrying knives and pitchforks? If God hadn't intervened, would they have caught up to the prophet and scalped him? Well then, those she bears might be justified? We might also posit that the she bears were toothless and declawed. etc., etc.,etc. Would you like to try your imaginative talents on the Midianite boys and the Sodomite infants.

 

It depends on what the texts says about Jezebels motives, Okie.

1 Kings 19

"So Jezebel sent this message to Elijah: “May the gods strike me and even kill me if by this time tomorrow I have not killed you just as you killed them.”"

Elijah replied, “I have zealously served the Lord God Almighty. But the people of Israel have broken their covenant with you, torn down your altars, and killed every one of your prophets. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me, too.”

Why would children come up in the account unless it had something to do with Jezebels threat? Why are 42 of these ones be mentioned if it had nothing to do with what is described? Otherwise, that would seem pretty random and incoherent that young children would spring out of no where on the prophet and make a friendly jibe at him. There is no logical flow to that.

Also, I never said they were killed or even hurt. I said they were ruffled up and fled which follows with the word used to denote division.

 

maybe it's just random and incoherent. Anyhow, it's quite a stretch to do so much extrapolation. If you use that much latitude, you'll soon be accused of being able to make the Bible say anything. Welcome to the club.

 

Maybe, but it appears to be coherent.

And thanks for the membership,

 

It's common throughout the Bible that whenever someone was grieving, they would tear off their hair and sometimes their garments. Elisha was mortified by the whole situation.

Also note, that when the men told Elisha to 'go on up' they were probably referring to Elijah's ascension and not merely asking him to leave the area which would further elaborate on the context of poking fun at Elisha's mourning.

I think this fits much better than a group of cheeky children out of the blue getting pulled into the account.

Here's something you might be interested in:

http://www.tektonics.org/film/elisha2bears.html

Not Syrian Brown Bears which are native to the area. The females weigh around 400lbs each.

"Weight - the weights of different sub-species of brown bears vary greatly the lightest sub-species (Syrian brown bear) weighs 400 lbs"

http://www.northsuperior.ca/blackbeartips.htm

Let's say that each man weighed 120 lbs now times that by 42 you get 5,040 lbs

Even so, they are still around 400lbs each against. 800lbs against 5,000.

Again, they were probably quite small in comparison to the situation. No where in the verse does it say that they were harmed but were merely divided.