Posted By Homebrew
>And that’s why Hagar sought to escape twice? Slavery is slavery. Degrees of harsh treatment are irrelevant and apologetic. In contrast to your statment, refer to the previous post concerning the acceptability of beating slaves as long as you don’t kill them.<
Hagar had many reasons for trying to escape as I remember correctly but I would have to check to make sure. Not having a copy of the Thora handy at the moment sure doesn’t help matters much. My point however was that indentured servitude does inded still exist in our society. Go and take a tiptoe through the BMR (Basic Militay Requirments) manual some time. Once you join you can’t get out till your time is up. As for the treatment of our military service personell it is not to much better or worse that that allowed in the OT. There was a reg I was shown once that states they don’t have to give you more than two hours sleep a day. That is harsh and cruel if you ask me, but acceptible. I would also point out at one time drill instructors were allowed to “beat” trainees. Maby not to within an inch of their life but I have little doubt that it happened from time to time. As for the release of slaves only applying to thoes of hebrew origin I think you are incorrect there as that is not how it was explained to me. If you could be so kind as to say where so I could find it, I would greatly appreciate it.
Posted By Homebrew
>So sex after menopause is a sin? Sex between people who have physical conditions that prevent conception is wrong? Sex during the time of the month when a woman is not fertile is wrong?<
No it is not. I am unaware of any instance in the OT that says you can’t have sex to have sex. I was simply stating where and why the edict was handed down. It becomes much more likely for a culture to survive if it produces offspring. According to the Thora yes, as the only time a woman is guarnteed not to be “fertile” is during menstruation. You of cource can make a good guess now days as to when the egg will drop but that’s it. Fertility clinics have to harvest eggs for a reason. As for conditions that prevent conception? Hmmm well I guess that’s why adoption and surrogate mothers were allowed by the OT.
As an aside thank you all for puting up with my horrible spelling as I am a severe dyslexic and “huked on fonics workd 4 me” hehehe…
It continues to boggle me that we can argue that human enslavement can or cannot be moral, but how two people live their lives, hurting no one, is a sin.*
**Zev replied:
Why does it boggle you?**
Zev, is it really that hard to comprehend? The attitude toward something as evil as slavery has changed, yet when suggesting that the attitudes toward something as innocuous as homosexual acts change, your reply is (paraphrased): Nope, sorry… homosexual acts will always be wrong. God said so.
Meaning no disrespect toward you or the other Jewish posters (and by extension, the Christian posters) but I’m very happy I’m not a follower of this God, He makes no sense.
No, it’s not hard to comprehend. And the paraphrased answer you gave is correct, only insofar as I believe it to be. I’m not expecting anyone else to believe it based on my say-so. You won’t see me opening a Bible and pointing to Leviticus to you and telling you “Hey, you guys, you’re doing evil and going to Hell.”
You can point out that besides being inconsistent with the real world, it’s not even consistent internally.
The founding of the city of Dan (named after Dan, from whom the tribe of Danites got its name) is detailed in Judges 18. Fine, except for one small detail: Genesis 14:14 said that Abram and 318 people went “unto” Dan to rescue Lot.
Abram died before Dan was even born. (Must’a had a time machine…)
And as for Lot… Genesis 14:14 & 16 both say Lot was Abram’s brother. But Genesis 11:27 and 14:12 say Lot is his nephew. (Maybe there were two Lots, father and son? But the text never says this.)
Genesis 14:7 says the Horites killed all the Amalekites. But Amalek was not born until Genesis 36:12! (He’s grandson to Esau.)
Just these few examples show one thing: God or Moses needed an editor.
I have several packages of bef jerky sitting by my desk. Every time I look at one of them, I can’t help but wonder, “How long before this right is attacked and legislated out of existence too? How long before meat – red meat, in particular – becomes the next second-hand smoke or marijuana or handgun?”
I stand corrected. However, stating that she was freed is a bit of a stretch.
Genesis 21:14
Sounds more like abandonded than freed. A single woman with a child and one water bottle alone in the wilderness doesn’t have much chance of survival. And they would have died had not God saved her.
(Of course this is true only if the scriptures are historial record rather than folklore, but that’s another debate)
You won’t see me opening a Bible and pointing to Leviticus to you and telling you “Hey, you guys, you’re doing evil and going to Hell.”**
No, thankfully you don’t. Unfortunately, many others do. Which is the entire point of this thread, how to do refute those who quote Scripture. Your answer seems to be: there’s nothing that can be done; it’s the will of God.
I don’t have a problem with that insofar as we shouldn’t have a theocratic state. However, just because a law appears in the Bible doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be implemented here. What I’m saying is that you can’t just take a stand and say "Well, that’s in the Bible, so because of SOCAS we can’t have that here."
Then we ask the questions; which laws and why? And who gets to decide? And does it have to be only the laws of the Bible? How about the Rig Veda or the Poetic Edda or the Carmina Gadelica?
Oh please. Maybe it’s a city named Dan that had nothing to do with the later tribe. Dan is a fairly simple name; it was probably quite common at the time.
**
Very often the term “brother” is used for kinsmen in general.
**
No, that’s not what 14:7 says. It says that they slew “the fields of the Amalakites.” (* s’dei Ha’Amakeiki* in Hebrew. It could very well be referring to the fields that were now occupied by Amalek at the time of Moses.
Another example of this occures in Genesis 2:13-14 where both the lands of Asshur (Assyria) and Cush are mentioned even though those people were obviously not born yet.
So, Zev, if somewhere down the road society deems homosexuality no longer immoral, does this mean Christianity and Judaism will follow suit, like they did with slavery (i.e., what once was expressly permitted is no longer to be practiced)? Or because there are admonitions against homosexuality specifically, will they not change their stance?
Esprix, without fully injecting myself into this debate, I don’t understand why you have a hard time with what Zev is saying. Let me try to put what he’s been saying in the simplest possible terms:
If G-d says it must not be done (e.g., homosexual sex), no changes in society’s morals can make it permissible to do.
If G-d says it must be done (e.g., circumcision), no changes in society’s morals can make it permissible to do away with.
If G-d says it may be done (e.g., slavery), whether one does it or not can vary depending on the moral code of the surrounding society.
True, but it was also God who told Abraham to listen to Sarah and send her away. Had God not done so, Abraham might not have sent her away to begin with.
Which laws and why? And who decides?: The ones decided upon by our elected government officials, according to our Constitution (I’m assuimng you’re in the U.S.).
We have a bunch of laws that have a basis in the Bible already on the books; everything ranging from murder and theft, down to blue laws in certain localities. All I’m saying is don’t automatically reject a proposed law out of hand simply because it comes from the Bible. If you find some other valid reason to reject it, then fine.
As to the other works you pointed out (of which I’m not familiar with a single one), if they contain laws that might benefit society as a whole, I’m willing to entertain the idea.
The NAS version uses the more generic relative in 14:14 & 16.
The NLT says Lot is his nephew in 14:12 & 16; in 14:14, it does not tell how Lot is related to Abram.
The RSV uses nephew in 14:12 and kinsman in 14 & 16.
The NCV uses nephew only once (in 14:12).
I’m not sure when all those other translations were made, but it seems clear to me that the translators changed or omitted brother wherever it was confusing.
Which is another strike against the doctrine that the KJV is an inerrant, God-inspired translation of His Word, IMHO, something I was always taught.
So it’s like saying the Spaniards killed many native Floridians when they first arrived, even though the peninsula wasn’t actually called “Florida” at the time (not by the natives, anyway; florida is a Spanish word).
The word translated as “brother” in Genesis 14:14 and 14:16 in the KJV, and as “relative” or “nephew” in every other translation of the bible into English (including the NKJV!), is the Hebrew “'ach”. “'ach” can have any one of the followin 5 meanings:
[LIST=a][li]brother of same parents[/li][li]half-brother (same father)[/li][li]relative, kinship, same tribe[/li][li]each to the other (reciprocal relationship)[/li]li of resemblance[/li][/LIST]
Actually, the phrase in questions is ben achi Avraham, which means “the son of the brother of Abraham.”
Of course jab1, you have to realize that I don’t put much stock in the KJV (or any of the other versions you mentioned either).
Also, keep in mind that there are many other times the Torah uses the word achicha (your brother) but it is clear from the context that it is not speaking strictly about a brother, but any Jew at all.
Lev 19:17. The commandment is not that you shouldn’t hate your brother achicha (but to hate everyone else is OK).
Several times in Lev. 25 the term achicha is used. It’s clear from the verses that it doesn’t refer to a brother only.
Gen 29:12 Jacob is called “the brother of the father” of Rachel. In fact, he is the nephew of her father. Again, brother is used as a general term for kinsman.
There are probably many others, but these are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
I have seen so many versions on this thread, and they all end up the same. It all boils down to:
When two verses seem to directly contradict, one verse should be taken literally, and the other verse is
A. a parable
B. a mistranslation that really means…
C. a MYSTERY of God
D. also the truth, and why are you questioning me, anyway?
Oh, opposed to the position that assumes the writer was a complete and utter vegetable and contradicted himself in the space of two sentences, AND that nobody ever noticed.
