OK- but we have hijacked this thread for quite some time.Altho this is related, it is not the OP. Open a new thread, perhaps.
>1 It is true i was unaware that the Laws seemingly applied to most, but not all servants/slaves. However, the statement was true, if only condidionally. You know your logic- it is a logically true statement. The words 'every" or similar expressions were not used by me.
>2 Yes, Lev does repeat the rule for hebrew servants. However, it clearly says “EVERY man”- not just 'every hebrew man". Perhaps one of my Jewish brethren, with a complete Talmud, and the original hebrew would like to help us out here. The Talmud is useful for interpreting the Laws. I will accept what they say. I would also like to see what it says about converting the “servants”- i think it was urged upon them, and circuncision was the only strict requirement.
(NOTE to JDT- this does not make this a “foreskin thread”, OK?)
>3 There are no punishments for breaking many of the Laws- eating “unclean” foods, for eg. It is still very wrong. Lack of punishment does not make it “OK”. Again, i would accept a Talmudic ruling here. Nore also, that if a servant (and not justa Hewbrew servant) was injured when beaten by his/her master- that master had to let them go free.
>4. heck- and i had “Asimov” all dogeared & ready. However, i do not want to see a Moderator harf. So- Baffling Bible Questions Answered: “Comparison with the practices of other cultures of that time shows that the slave in Isreal had many more rights and much greater protection under the law”. (and later) “While individual slaves might be misused by wicked masters, slavery in Isreal was hardly the awful institution that it was in other cultures or even in the United sates thousands of years later”.
Now, are you going to at least admit that it certainly seemed better to be an ancient Isreali slave than a Pre-war southern US slave?
Well, I asked our OT scholars on the board, and Zev responded to my questions here. He established that your statements quoted below were in error, so maybe we can stop going back and forth:
Incorrect. Non-Hebrew slaves were NOT freed during Jubilee.
Incorrect. The Exodus 21:20-1 verse refers to the master not being punished, not the slave.
Gentile slaves were circumcised–you had that part right. However, this did NOT give them the “freedom after 6 years” rights of the Jewish, as you argued, nor does circumcision make them “Hebrew.” Slaves could not “become” Jewish on their own while they were slaves, so the Jubilee freedom and freedom after 6 years avaliable to Jews was closed to them. (If they were freed by their master they were automatically Jewish.)
Incorrect. Jews were only commanded to “not rul[e] over [slaves] with harshness” for Jewish slaves. There were rules regarding treatment of slaves, which I have never disputed. But I was correct that you were wrong in stating that Jews were commanded to not rule over gentile slaves with “vigor”.
No, there were laws regulating the treatment of slaves. Look at this in the code:
If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and he sell the maid servant who has borne him children, for money, the money which the merchant has paid shall be repaid to him by the owner of the slave and she shall be freed.
If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.
If a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry the daughter of a free man, and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no right to enslave the children of the free.
…now, it’s not particularly wonderful treatment, and the Code of Hammurabi is much more concerned with money and commerce than the OT, but it does state that if a man tries to sell a slave that he has had children by, she will go free; that a slave a man has had children with will assume equality with the wife; and that children of a slave and a free woman are free (children of a slave and a free man were almost certainly free as well). That sounds like it is regulating the treatment of slaves, and it was certainly considered fair for its time (just as the slavery in the OT was considered fair for its time).
What evidence do you have that the majority of slaves were fellow Jews, and not gentiles?
It’s also weaselly to try repeatedly to back out of it at this late date. DITWD: “Cats have no fur.” Me: “Look at all these cats with fur! [cites]” DITWD: “Well, I didn’t say ‘all’ or ‘every’. It is a logically true statement.” :rolleyes:
I was questioning your statement that the Jews 3000 years ago were more humane in their treatment of slaves than any other culture. You didn’t even specify “more humane for its time”, nor do I think that every minor culture has been studied, although it is difficult to tell about the treatment of slaves without a written history. Were the laws of the ancient Jews humane for their time? Yes. Do I believe that they were the most humane treatement that ever existed? No.
:amused: Admit? When did I ever dispute it? I simply wanted you to back up your statements about the ancient Jews, after I asked several times! Given your track record in this discussion, I think it would be unwise to accept everything you say that appears possibly questionable without asking for a cite. Right now my opinion of the likely accuracy of any of the “facts” you post about the Bible or ancient history is remarkably low, which is rather astounding since you post in a manner that seems to imply that you expect to be taken as someone rather learned in these areas.
>1 right- undone by out talmudic experts.
>2 However, as zev pointed out, there were still rules that bound the master, and thus, even tho he might not be punished serverly, it was not “OK” to beat a slave to death.
>3 Hmm- well here you were wrong, ie that slaves were required to be circumcised, as you disputed. And this made them “part-Jewish”- so on that we were BOTH wrong. This has to be a Talmudic ruling-1st I have heard of the Jews calling somebody “part Jew”. Weird. Well, we both learned something.
>4 Umm, I re-read zevs posts several times-could not find any “talmudic” ruling here. Ask him directly, will you. However, I beleive in general that these “semi-Jew” slaves were protected from serious abuse from their masters by Jewish Law.
>5 Well, I read something like that myself. It is not what i would call the “regulation of fair treatment of slaves”. Not anywhere near to the extent that OT Law does. However, I will agree that there are some sections regulating slaves.
>6 I am sorry- I thought in context my statement clearly was to be read “cultures of their ancient times”. Of course I never meant any culture at any time in history- like say the USA today. I was wondering what the heck you were driving at here- i thought you were doing a “ben” for a while.
But- we do agree that the fair treatment of slaves was regulated by OT law, altho most of the regulations apply to hebrew slaves. And that “servants”, especially hebrew servants, and most especially the “daughters” that everyone was so agast at- had unprecedented legal protections. Finally, for their time, and likely for some thousands of years after- the ancient Hebrews treated their slaves better than the other cultures (of the period). So, altho I was wrong on a few specific points- my general theses of slavery in OT isreal was correct.
I never disputed that all slaves had to be circumcised: I challenged that the verses you posted required all slaves to be circumcised, and that making a slave Hebrew by circumcision doesn’t make any sense. I was correct in both of those; it is other verses that required that–if you had posted those, I would have accepted it (the verses that DO command universal circumcision are Genesis 17:7 - 13, not 17:27 as you claimed)–and circumcision does not make a slave Hebrew. If I had ever said “slaves were not circumcised” rather than “that verse doesn’t seem to show that all slaves were circumcised” and “it doesn’t make sense to have a ‘slave for life’ that you free after six years,” you could say I disputed it. There’s a reason why I phrase things tenatively and very precisely when I am not certain of a fact, and I was never certain that slaves were not circumcised. This was our exact exchange:
Er, no, I don’t think so. Zev says: “I’m afraid I’m guilty of over-simplification. Normally, you can’t be “part-Jewish.” A non-Jewish slave is a different matter, however. What I meant was that they are required to keep some of the commandmetns, but not others. They are required to keep all negative commandments (thou shalt not…) and all non-timebound positive commandments.” It sounds like slaves are required to keep certain commandments, but are NOT part-Jewish, althogh if Zev tells me that they were honest-to-G-d part-Jewish I will accept it. But I think he meant that he was using a metaphor.
I did ask him directly. Zev said: “In the specific verse you mentioned, yes, the prohibition only applies to Jewish slaves.”
Just like Ben, I like things backed up. It’s honestly not hard to provide support for statements; you saw me do it in this thread. I offered several translations to show that mine was more accurate, I offered cites to Biblical interpretation by experts, I provided teh full context of verses and argued from that, I asked OT scholars what they thought. If you would back up your statements to the same degree when we request it, it would be very helpful. Even with people I agree with, if they say something I am not certain of I will ask them to provide sources, and I expect them to do so.
Daniel, I would not have said anything if you had simply said, “For their time period, slaves were treated rather well by OT Jews.” However, your post had two rather glaring factual errors in it, and I’m not a big fan of letting those things go. If you would post a wee bit more tenatively when you are not completely rock-solid on the facts, it would be a great help; if you had said “I believe slaves were freed after 6 years” I would have corrected you a lot more mildly, and you do not look as if you are putting yourself forth as an expert.
Exodus 21:20 & 21, according to the RSV: “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, for the slave is his money.” It sounds to me that it’s all right to beat a slave to death as long as the slave takes one or two days to die.
But maybe you mean the KJV: “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money.” Typical of the KJV, it’s clear as mud.
Now we come to the NIV: “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” Okay, so you can’t beat one to death QUICKLY, but if he or she lingers in excruciating pain for two days or more, it’s fine ‘n’ dandy with Jehovah! Yeah, that’s REALLY enlightened treatment, all right. :rolleyes:
What’s the fun of having slaves if you can’t beat them?
Why are you people arguing about the legal code of a 3000 year old Mediteranean culture? Has the SD Science Advisory Board finished the time machine?? And NO ONE TOLD ME!!
Okay, this page from the Bad Astronomer should settle, once and for all, the question of the Earth revolving around the sun.
It doesn’t. The Earth/Moon combination and the Sun revolve around a common center of gravity called the barycenter. And so do all the other planets. Infact, the barycenter between the Sun and Jupiter is somewhere above the surface of the Sun, meaning the Sun’s path through space has a discernible wobble to it.
If there are extraterrestrials, and if they are close enough, it’s possible they may have detected that wobble and deduced that our Sun has planets, just as we have done with certain other stars.
>1 So, what you are saying, is that if you insert a ‘weasle’ word in there, even if your intent & point is wrong- you really are not wrong as you had that ‘weasle’ word?
>2 No, you clearly said, that since that verse provided no punishment for beating a slave to death 9as long as he survived a day or so)- then it was perfectly OK for hebrew master to beat & abuse his slaves. Zev has now clarified that. No- it was not Ok, it is against the Law.
>3. No, “ben does not like things backed up”- he steadfastedly refuses to ever provide ANY support for any of his statements (in our debates), and he appears to ask for verif only from me. At least- when you debate, altho you do use tricks, you will back up your ststements. And i do back up my statements- but just like you- sometimes there is other documentation that shows my cites wrong.
>4 Go back to #1. You have said, that since you make few 'definate" statements- you are not wrong- even when the brunt & the thesis show you wrong. OK- but, given that same rule- since I did not say “ALL slaves”- and since my statements were true for SOME slaves- then- there are no errors. It is true “slaves were freed after 6 years”- since only 2 slaves being freed by Hebrew Law would make my ststement LITERALLY true- there is no error. Sorry, gaudere, old chum- what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you can pull that “since I did not say every or all and since my statements were true in some cases- i am not wrong”- then the same rules applies to me. bsides, there is a differnece between a “glaring error” and a “nitpick”.
And, are we here to win 'debate points"? No, we are here to 'eliminate ignorance". So, what would have been wrong, instead of toasting my butt about minor details that were not critical to the arguement- to say: “I agree with the main concept of your aguements, oh DITWD, but i think that several of your supporting details are incorrect- I would like to see you clarify or back them up”. You do not HAVE to be picky & aggresive. Note that most of our “biblical scholars” here won’t even engage in these kinds of GD- I wonder why? It would not hurt you to be nicer.
I AM SAYING THAT I PHRASE THINGS VERY SPECIFICALLY. You say “slaves were freed after six years” and try to wiggle out by saying “well, some slaves were freed”. If I had said “slaves were not circumcised” and then tried to weasel out of it by saying “Uh, well, if just one slave was not circumcised, then it was logically true,” you’d be quite right to call me on it. But the fact is, I simply said: “I don’t beleive you interpretation of those verses is correct” and “it doesn’t make sense to have slaves ‘for life’ if you really free them in six years”. I meant precisely and exactly what I said there, and I NEVER claimed slaves were never circumcised.
There is NO secular punishemnt. You’re supposed to be “nice”–I suppose that establishes that slaves were never beaten?
::snort:: Yeah, I’m a nasty bitch all right. On that note, see you in the Pit.
Again- look at point 2. Gaspode (who gaudere said was correct), jab, and to a lesser extent gaudere herself- all said, that since the next verse provided no specific punishment to a master who beat his slave to(a lingering) death- thereby it was perfectly OK to do so- proving that the Isrealis were not humane to their slaves. Zev has said this is wrong- there are, as i stated- many other OT laws that would make this illegal & wrong.
Again- Gaudere- I BACKED UP MY THESIS, WITH CITES. STOP SAYING I DID NOT. In fact, since it was not my thesis, but my CITES that you argued with- you would have had no arguement without those cites. Ipso facto- you are wrong. Next- I admitted i was wrong on several non-critcal cites that i used to back up my thesis- especially as some Laws that I took to be general, turned out to be specific. OK- I was wrong. Now, be a big girl, and admit the same- or not, it is your call.
Finally- please respond to my last point in my quote above. Since you (now) admit that you agree with my general thesis & point- but thought some of my cites were too general, or misapplied ( ie-wrong: to which I admit)- then why did you not say so? Why go thru 2 pages, with the only logical conclusion anyone could make is that you disagreed with my point, and were attempting to prove me wrong- when all you now claim you were doing is trying to get me to tighten up on my cites? Instead of attacking me- why not some constructive critisism? Heck- with some of my best sourcebooks lent out, i admit some of my citing has been substandard. OK, there is no rule that says you must be "nice’- but it could not hurt.
Currently, Zev has said that he does not believe there is a secular punishment for beating a slave so badly he cannot get up for two days. There were religious moral commnads against hurting animals, and he extrapolates from this to say that Jews would therefore be commnanded to not hurt slaves. To which I bring up the example of Southern slavery that you like to decry for its brutal practises.
Most slavers were Christian. Christians are commanded to love their neighbor as themselves.
Slaves were considered property.
There were laws on the books declaring that there was to be no secular punishment for brutally beating slaves.
Were slaves frequently brutally mistreated? Yup.
Now, how does this compare to the OT Jews?
1)Most slavers were Jews. There was no command to love your neighbor as yourself, but there were general commands to be nice to other people and animals.
2) Slaves were considered property.
3) There were laws on the books declaring that there was to be no secular punishment for brutally beating slaves.
4) Were slaves frequently brutally mistreated? I consider it highly likely.
I see no reason why apparently quite mild religious commands regarding the treatment of animals should have more of an effect on the treatmnet of slaves by the OT Jews than Christianity’s commandments affected the treatment of slaves in the Pre-war South. Some few undoubtably did not mistreat slaves due to religious beliefs, but to the majority, I believe they were property, given to them by God to serve them and their children. The fact that their are laws on the books in both the South and the OT declaring no punishment for brutal beating of slaves seems to me to indicate that the practice was fairly common and accepted. If religious commands to love their neighbor as themselves did not stop slavers in the south, why would a command regarding animals truly prevent mistreatment of slaves by OT Jews?
You may believe that all the OT Jews were kind to their slaves, but given the parallels between them and Southern slavers, I don’t consider minor–or in the case of Christians, even major–religious commands powerful enough to prevent slaves’ mistreatment. For a society to genuinely show strong abhorrence for mistreatment of slaves, it should have actual secular punishments, such as were handed out for mistreatments of their fellow Jews. Freed Jews certainly did not depend on religious commands alone to force their brothers to respect their rights; they had secular punishments.
You seem to have a pervasive failure to understand basic rules of logic and rhetoric:
If you qualify a statement from the start, you are making an honest statement of the extent of your knowledge.
If you make an absolute statement, and backpedal by adding qualifications after you’ve been proven wrong, and claim that those qualifications aren’t an indication that you’re changing your mind, but are instead an indication that you were totally right from the start, then you’re weaselling.
**
I will not stand for these utterly false accuations. DITWD has been harassing me lately, demanding that I take positions solely so that he can start an acrimonious and vindictive argument with me. As for asking for verification only from him, I think that that point is so obviously false as to be beneath reply.
Bear in mind that DITWD, of all people, shouldn’t be throwing stones. He has claimed more than once that the Internet Infidels site is riddled with falsehoods and out-of-context quotes. He has even said that Kathleen Kenyon must be “rolling in her grave” to see how the Infidels have distorted her archaeological research. But what do we find when we scrutinize his claims more closely? We find that not only did the Infidels represent Kenyon’s research accurately, but also that DITWD was supporting his claims by taking quotes from the Infidels out of context, making them seem to say things very different from the plain meaning of the original text. And when the subject came up again in a different thread, he actually claimed that everyone in the thread had agreed with him that the Infidels were biased! What incredible, audacious hypocrisy!
But don’t take it from me; if DITWD’s accusations are of any interest to you, then check out the record yourself:
Here is the thread in which DITWD lied about the Infidels. The last page in particular is of interest, because that is the point where DITWD, faced with damning evidence of his lies, drops the argument.
Having dropped the argument from that thread, here is the one in which he claimed that everyone from the above thread agreed with him. Moreover, he actually declared outright that he was hijacking the thread in order to harass me!
DITWD, I really have to wonder what you hope to gain from your continued lies. Like I said to Wildest Bill recently, you guys seem to not be honest enough to tell the truth, and not smart enough to realize that anyone can see that you’re lying just by referring to your earlier statements.
Er, Ben, I’m busy bitching out DITWD in the Pit, just so we can avoid this sort of hijack of the actual topic of the thread (yes, this thread once had an actual topic). Wanna scoot over there and join me instead of posting further about DITWD’s debate tactics in this thread? No “Moderator Hat ON” here, you haven’t broken any rules or been unusually stalker-like, IMHO; I just personally don’t like Great Debates to be primarily griping about people instead of the topic at hand–that’s what the Pit is for. (Although, there is a great deal of griping about other posters here in GD right now–I blame the election. But I can’t reasonably expect to keep personal grudges wholly out of GD, anyhow.) Thanks.
Rabbits/hares, do, however, eat specially-produced feces (everyone–EWWW!), and with a little hand-waving apologists can argue that they “kinda” chew their cud. I think the specific term used in the original language has overtones of “eating-again” rather than the more specific “cud”.
Well- since the OT was written some several thousands of years before Linnaeus, who is the one who classifed & defined Birds & bats in the MODERN scientific way, it is hardly surprizing that the OT Priests & others who wrote the Bible did not folllow the Linnaeus system of classification. Then- “things that fly= Bird”. A perfectly good definition, but unscientific. Now, if they HAD called bats “mammals”- that would have been VERY interesting.
However, i do not want to see a Moderator harf. So- Baffling Bible Questions Answered: “Comparison with the practices of other cultures of that time shows that the slave in Isreal had many more rights and much greater protection under the law”. (and later) “While individual slaves might be misused by wicked masters, slavery in Isreal was hardly the awful institution that it was in other cultures or even in the United sates thousands of years later”.
If I had ever said “slaves were not circumcised” rather than “that verse doesn’t seem to show that all slaves were circumcised” and “it doesn’t make sense to have a ‘slave for life’ that you free after six years,” you could say I disputed it. There’s a reason why I phrase things tenatively and very precisely when I am not certain of a fact, and I was never certain that slaves were not circumcised. This was our exact exchange:
But I can’t reasonably expect to keep personal grudges wholly out of GD, anyhow.) Thanks.