Um – the proper noun factoid was so obvious, I didn’t think anyone would be so silly as to even bring it up. Most proper nouns are capitalised, d’oh - doesn’t mean that all capitalised words are proper nouns.
Do we talk about the Vikings and their Gods? No. We talk about the Vikings and their gods. Lower case. Do we talk about Thor, the God of thunder and lightening? No. We talk about Thor, the god of thunder and lightening. Lower case. Our God: upper case. ‘Other’ gods: Lower case.
Or am I missing something? Wouldn’t be the first time…
Daniel,
You have a very interesting way of defining ‘not to be mistreated’ even if I accept your translation. I am still allowed to beat a 13-year old girl so viciously with a stick that I break both her legs and puncture her lung with no punishment, and the legal system won’t punish the slave for it. How loving. Hell even if I poke a slaves eyes out with a stick the only punishment is that I lose possession of the slave. Where I live if I did this to my dog I would be jailed or very substantially fined for mistreatment. I think it’s fairly safe to say Hebrew slaves could be mistreated.
As for your reference to being treated with vigour and freeeing slaves every jubilee, the whole passage makes it rather clear that this doesn’t refer to gentile slaves. In fact it refers only to ‘your brother who grows poor alongside you and has to sell himself’. It states quite clearly the injunction against mistreatment and perpetual slavery applies not to people of the nations, since ‘You may use them as workers, but upon your brothers the sons of Israel you must not tread the one upon the other with tyranny’. No mention of not treating slaves harshly or even freeing them for the jubilee, only indentured servants who retained the right to buy their own freedom, or have their family buy it on their behalf, unlike the gentile slaves who ‘must become your possessions and you must pass them on as an inheritance to your sons… to time indefinite’
I don’t see any evidence that Hebrew slaves couldn’t be mistreated, just that there were two classes of ‘slaves’, just as there were indentured white servants in America who were accorded all the rights of citizens and had limited term indentures.
If you have any scriptural quotes that a gentile slave could convert to Judaism and be freed for the Jubilee could you please post it agin. I seem to have misssed it in your last post.
Actually, the word was translated to Day in English. The definition of the word , I believe it is “yom”, is actually more like an amount of time between two events.
Additionally, people tend to think that a proposed creation would have to occur in a timeframe of days inorder to be a miracle of God which is ridiculous. As if taking eons to do it would make it much less spectacular. I would suggest considering God to be omni-temporal, and though doing something fast sounds miraculous to us; why would a God be concerned with how long it took. If he is omni-temporal then we can’t even really relate literal days
Not according to what I’ve heard, and I have cites! They explicitly say in those verses that the slaves are slaves for life, even being passed down to your children as inherentance. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/comm_read/976526084.html
“II. That they might purchase bondmen of the heathen nations that were round about them, or of those strangers that sojourned among them (except of those seven nations that were to be destroyed); and might claim a dominion over them, and entail them upon their families as an inheritance, for the year of jubilee should give no discharge to them, v. 44, 46. […] It prefigured the bringing in of the Gentiles to the service of Christ and his church. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thy inheritance, Ps. 2:8. And it is promised (Isa. 61:5), Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your vine-dressers; see Rev. 2:26, 27. The upright shall have the dominion in the morning, Ps. 49:14. 3. It intimates that none shall have the benefit of the gospel jubilee but those only that are Israelites indeed, and the children of Abraham by faith: as for those that continue heathenish, they continue bondmen. See this turned upon the unbelieving Jews themselves, Gal. 4:25, where Jerusalem, when she had rejected Christ, is said to be in bondage with her children.”
What do you offer to support your belief that slaves were freed during Jubilee? Also, please note that your statement that slaves were freed after six years is still wrong.
That is not the way I have ever seen anyone read it. It seems to me to be referring to the master. Let’s look at this in context:
20
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21
but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Now, when it refers to the slave, it says male of female. The shift to the male-only pronoun seems like it must refer to the (always) male master, whereas the gender-neutral “slave” refers to a male or female slave. Now, arguing pronouns with a translation is always titchy, but I think I am correct here. For example, look at some other translations:
Darby’s: Only, if he continue [to live] a day or two days, he shall not be avenged; for he is his money
Young’s: only if he remain a day, or two days, he is not avenged, for he [is] his money.
Now, the reference to “avenged” must certainly be referring to the master being punished for harming his slave, who is, after all, a fellow Hebrew and likely has relatives who know of him/her. Certainly, it would not be used to refer to the slave not being punished–that makes no sense in that context.
Not to mention, you are arguing that not only is the master not punished, but that the kindness towards slaves results in such amazing mercy that slave is not harmed for being so severely injured by his master that he cannot get up for two days! Gee, how nice.
But nearly beating him to death is all right, so long as he can get up.
I didn’t ask abotu the treatment of slaves in America; I asked about your rather sweeping claim that Jews 3000 years ago were “far more liberal & humanitarian to their “servants” than any other culture.” [Emphasis mine.] Please back this up.
:rolleyes:
“You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life…”
“…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
“if a priest buys a slave as his property for money…”
Gen 17:23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
Gen 17:24 And Abraham [was] ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
Gen 17:25 And Ishmael his son [was] thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
Gen 17:26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.
Gen 17:27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.
How do you get the interpretation that all slaves were to be made into Hebrews forever after, based on what happened in Abraham’s house alone? That really sounds like a one-time thing, and I don’t recall any later reference to making all slaves into Hebrews. It seems rather odd that they would speak of keeping non-Jewish slaves for life if they were just going to circumcise them and free them six years later. I don’t think your interpretation of those verses is correct.
I don’t agree, in the following sense: In Newtonian mechanics, fictitious forces appear in non-inertial frames. Furthermore, the fictitious forces are different in different non-inertial frames. However, in GR, fictitious forces never appear. The laws are the same in every frame, inertial or non-inertial. So, if you’re using the GR field equations, you use the same equations, whether you compute the Earth’s motion in a frame attached to the Earth, the Sun, or Karl Malden’s nose. In that sense it is arbitrary to prefer the Sun frame.
How this is connected to the “Sun rotating around the Earth” question is no longer particularly clear to me. As I stated in an old post, you don’t need to appeal to GR to raise ambiguity in such statements.
**
They’re unrelated in that the difference between inertial and non-inertial has fundamental significance and is addressed in the development of both Newtonian mechanics and GR, but the concept of “more inertial” has computational significance only (and maybe that only under the Newtonian laws. I don’t do GR calculations so I don’t know whether the Sun frame is computationally simpler in GR.)
It seems to me that the two meanings of the word “privileged” we have been debating are as follows:
(1) Privileged frames are those in which the laws of mechanics are fundamentally correct and do not require modification by e.g. fictitious forces.
(2) Privileged frames are those in which computations are more convenient.
Neither definition is at odds with the physics, but sense (1) seems more in line with usage.
I read pldennison’s use of the word “privileged” in sense (1), but I think you read it in sense (2). Clearly, if you take sense (2), the Sun frame is privilegeed in Newtonian mechanics (maybe in GR too; I don’t know). But if you insisted on using the word “privileged” in sense (2), people wouldn’t understand what you were talking about.
I don’t know how many times I have to debunk this. First of all, it isn’t a cylinder. It is a round, bath-tub shaped object.
Go to you bathroom. Note that there is a certain distance around the edge of the tub. Now notice if you measure around, underneath the tub, you get a completely different measure “around” the tub.
\ /
__________________/
See?
I’ve seen this so many times I have to wonder if modern man lacks an ability to think in 3-dimensions. Too much TV??
Lev25:10 “…;it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possionion, and ye shall return EVERY man unto his family”. (emph mine). You give no verse for your quote. And how does that make me “WRONG” for saying a servant is to be freed after 6 years- i quoted numerous verses to support it? You mean that because those verses, and my statement applies to only some servant, but not all, my statement is WRONG? Come on now, you are being obtuse. The bast you can say is that my statement was overly generalized, and was incorrect when applied to all circumstances. Thus, it was right- just not in every circumstances. I did not say EVERY servant, now did I? You have to play fair too, you know.
As to the “beating”- there is a big difference between a master being severly punished for doing something- and then saying everything else he is not to be severly punished for, thereby is “OK”. You know that too- nowhere does it say it is “OK, peachy, fine & dandy” for a Master to beat his slave unto death, or nearly so- it simply specifies punishment for those those who kill their slave. I am afraid that as to which or what “he’ applies to, or what the OT meant by “continues” is one of those unclear verses. I, and my sources, interpret it differently than you. In any case, there is a general prohibition against treating a servant 'rigorously”.
You asked me to “back up my statement”- you did not specify which half. At least admit that slaves in America were treated worse that slaves in Isreal 300 years ago. The mistreatment of slaves, working them to death, etc- in the ancient world is so much an accepted fact that i cannot beleive you are asking me to prove it. That’s getting a bit too far off in the “Yeah, well prove it” category for me. The Code of Hammurabi contains no laws which regulate the fair treatment of slaves. Show me that slaves were routinely treated better in other ancient nations. I am sorry but researching the slavery codes in every ancient nation, which we have little or no records of, and posting them to show that slaves had bascisly no rights- would be pointless. I could give quotes from authors who SAY that the Isrealites treated their slaves better, but since that would be “opinion”- some would say i am 'argueing from authority".
In any case, this is so far off topic, that we have hijacked this poor thread quite a bit too far.
Web.; Umm, because “G-d” is one of the Judeo-Christian dieties names- thus it is a proper noun.
And to you folks still argueing about the Bible and the “Sun going around the earth” etc. We still to this day, speak of the “Sun coming up” or “Sun going down”,“Sunrise” “sunset”- and we know full well that the Sun does none of these things, it only appears to. Thus, even if the ancient Isrealis were perfectly aware of the Earth going around the Sun, they would still write as if the opposite were true- as that is what we still do today. Have you ever asked: “Hey, what time is the Earth going to rotate enough so that we can see the Sun?” No, you ask- “When’s Sunrise?”. Sheesh.
It isn’t often a man contradicts himself in the same paragraph.
You follow those statements with this:
Aren’t you judging Jefferson by today’s standards? Jefferson did recognize that American slavery was wrong and called for its abolition, but he was trapped by the economy of his time. Had he freed his slaves, he would have thrown his family into destitution. (Jefferson was heavily in debt when he died even WITH slaves.) The economy of his time did not allow for plantation owners to use paid labor. They would have had to charge much higher prices for their crops and would not have been able to sell enough to stay in business.
(I’m reading a biography of Jefferson when I’m not posting.)
No, I was judging him by the standards of the Isrealis some 2000 years prior. By the standards of Jeffersons day- he was a fair, kind & liberal master.
Those must be the most appallingly weaselly statements I have ever encountered. Let me simply look at them a moment in awe.
::looking in awe::
.
.
.
.
Now, you said previously: “Slaves were to be set free after only 6 years of service (and when they left, they did not go empty handed, they had to be given means to make a living, eg. “thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock”), they were not to be mistreated, etc. The term “indentured servant” far better defines Isrealite 'slavery”. In many ways, the Isrealites were strongly anti-slavery."
How exactly is anyone supposed to suppose that you are talking only about Hebrew male slaves when you do not say so? You are allowing a false impression to be put forth, if in fact you did know that the “freeing after six years” only applied to male Hebrew slaves. If I say “cats are not very furry creatures. Cats have no fur,” would you accept a later comment from me that “well, I was actually only referring to hairless cats, not the cats that do have fur. I didn’t say all cats, did I?” :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I stand by my statement: “Slaves were to be set free after only 6 years of service (and when they left, they did not go empty handed, they had to be given means to make a living, eg. “thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock”)” is incorrect, by the way any normal person would read it. “…[T]hey were not to be mistreated,” is incorrect.
Leviticus 25:46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and CAN MAKE THEM SLAVES FOR LIFE, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (emph mine)
Let’s look at a bit more context of Leviticus:
[Lev 25:39] "And if your brother becomes poor beside you, and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave:
[Lev 25:40] he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee;
[Lev 25:41] then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own family, and return to the possession of his fathers.
[Lev 25:42] For they are my servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.
[Lev 25:43] You shall not rule over him with harshness, but shall fear your God.
[Lev 25:44] As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you.
[Lev 25:45] You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.
[Lev 25:46] You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.
Now, it explicitly says you should free your fellow Jew on Jubilee, but foreigners can be slaves for life. If you were to free them, why would it not say so, when it said so for the fellow Jew? I think you are reading things into it that are not there.
It says that there is to be NO punishment if you beat a slave severely enough that they cannot get up for two days. If there is to be NO punishment, how is it not OK?
What sources are you basing this on? I would be surprised indeed if your reading of it was considered a valid interpretation. I provided three translations that backed up my statement. In addition, if one goes by your interpretation, you are simply arguing that the slave is not punished if the master beats him so badly that he cannot get up. To which I say again: how nice.
That only applied to Hebrew slaves, as I understand it. Lev 25:46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (Harshness is “rigor” in the KJV) See? It specifically says you can do X to non-Jewish slaves, but do not treat your brothers with harshness while they are slaves.
You made the statement that Jews 3000 years ago treated slaves more kindly than any other culture. This is an amazingly broad claim. I want you to back it up.
You made the claim, you back it up. I have made no claim, merely asked, repeatedly for verification of yours.
I don’t care what other people will say. Back up your statement by any means you can. Go ahead and give me the quotes from the authors that say that Jews 3000 years ago treated their slaves better than any other culture (although if it’s Asimov again, I may have to be violently ill). I am quite prepared to believe you, but you have to support your statements!
If the answer to your question as so obvious, why did you ask it?
It doesn’t that all capilized words aren’t proper nouns either.
No, because in that case “god” is not a proper noun. The same word can be proper in one context and improper in another. Example: “Congress is divided into two legislatures, the House and the Senate”. “House” is proper. “Turn left after the house with the blue van in front of it”. “House” is improper.
Monty
FYI, Monty: just because the software claims that something was originally posted by someone, that doesn’t mean it was.
“It doesn’t that all capilized words aren’t proper nouns either.”
That should be
"It doesn’t mean that all capilized words aren’t proper nouns either. "
At first I thought that you were disagreeing with me because you misunderstood what I was saying, but now I see that you are disagreeing because you misunderstand Relativity. As I mentioned before, objects can travel faster than light in a non-inertial reference frame. In addition, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum, as well as many other laws, can be broken.
“After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.”
You realize, of course, that all you Round-Earthist heathens are going straight to Hell when you die.
DITWD, would it kill you to admit just once that you made a mistake? I mean, you could at the very least admit that your statement was incorrect, as opposed to “right-just not in every circumstances (sic).” Or you could apologize for phrasing it poorly. But somehow, even though you made the mistake, you find a way to make Gaudere be at fault.
It just seems to me that I cannot remember even a single circumstance in which you have apologized for even the most trivial wrongdoing. You can’t admit you’re wrong when the evidence is clearly and massively against your argument- and you can’t admit you made a mistake when you phrase an argument poorly. Even when you bear false witness, and people prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your accusations are false, I don’t see you retract your statements. Somehow, one way or another, with you it’s always the other guy’s fault.
Given his rather serious misrepresentation of his sources in the past (ie last week,) I think it’s entirely justifiable to ask for, at the very least, some quotes and some citations.
DITWD, if you say that everyone in the “Historical records” thread agreed with you, when in reality we all thought you were dead wrong, how can we trust you when you say that your sources agree with you? If you are so careless and dishonest as to lie about people’s opinions even when they are present to protest your misrepresentations, how can we trust you when you make claims about authors who aren’t here to set the record straight?
