[Split Thread] The Bible and Slavery [Archive]

Simon39759

16th August 2009, 06:24 PM

Which post, a few posts ago, did I describe Christianity as some kind of shadowy resistance?

And it's a fact that there are at least 20,000 ancient manuscripts on the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for Tacitus. And that's not including all the ones that were destroyed by the Romans when the order went out to destroy Christian writings.

-The list of martyrs you kept re-posting.
-Your post about slavery, that Jesus could not have talked more openly against it because it would have offended the rest of society that'd have crushed the early Christianity.
-Your multiple posts about the gospels' authors and how they really were the apostles but could not give their name more openly out of fear of persecution.

I can not link to these posts right now, it seems that many of them were flushed away since then and I have little enthusiasm digging through your archives, but you did made these statements (often multiple times) didn't you?

DOC

17th August 2009, 02:55 AM

So, if 20,000 manuscripts mean that the luke story is true, it must also mean that Jesus really did support beating slaves.Another derail slavery post. And one should notice how you over exaggerate and never tell the whole story of the parable. Here is the parable from Luke 12:47:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4991365#post4991365

Also if anyone is interested, I reply additionally to Joobz' pet issue of slavery in posts:

2752, 2705, 2696, 2490, 2501, 2505, 2509, 2513, 2422, 1947, 1889, 1878, 1793, 1775, 1811, 1802, 1795, and 1100.

in my Evidence thread in the History and Lit. Forum. To respond, people ought to put it in there and not in this archaeology thread.

joobz

17th August 2009, 05:15 AM

Another derail slavery post. And one should notice how you over exaggerate and never tell the whole story of the parable.
SO do you admit that your appeal to numbers (20,000 manuscript claim) isn't valid then?
You don't get it both ways DOC:

Either the number of manuscipts makes the luke stories AND Jesus' support of slavery more likely true, or the appeal to numbers is meaningless.

I vote for the later option.

As an aside: I didn't exaggerate anything. Jesus states that it is acceptable to beat a slave. There's multiple levels of immorality tied to such a view.

eccles

17th August 2009, 05:25 AM

Maia

17th August 2009, 02:42 PM

Here are the verses that I think were in question when it comes to Jesus and slavery:

Matthew 10:24-25. A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master.

Luke 12:47.
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows."

Of course, Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar and John Shelby Spong (both of whom believe that there actually was a historical Jesus, so take it with as many grains of salt as desired-- although neither one accepts him as divine in any way), separated out about 80% of the supposed sayings of Jesus which they don't believe were actually said by him. Both of the above were in the 80%, for whatever it's worth.

And about the Harry Potter books... well, of COURSE they're not more real than other novels!! Honestly. Some people just indulge in the wildest, craziest speculation...The fanfic is what's more real. :) In particular, the fanfic here. (http://www.dracoandginny.com) Ahem. Or at least so I've heard. (Strolls away, whistling innocently.)

DOC

18th August 2009, 02:17 AM

Assuming this is true and using your reasoning, we are then 99% confident that Jesus did condone the beating of slaves.

ETA:
Any denial of this point amounts to simple, dishonest special pleading.
DOC, do you know what special pleading is?

One could also say it is dishonest not to tell the whole story of the parable and just obsessively go around to other threads saying Jesus condones beating slaves without telling the parable also.

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.

Christ stated the slave owner (from the parable) would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair?

18th August 2009, 02:26 AM

One could also say it is dishonest not to tell the whole story of the parable and just obsessively say Jesus condones beating slaves without telling the parable also.

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.

Christ stated the slave owner would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair?

holy crap, isnt beeing a slave punishment enough?

DOC

18th August 2009, 03:13 AM

holy crap, isnt beeing a slave punishment enough?It depends, many slaves were better off than the free poor. I brought in a published book in my other thread that stated so.

18th August 2009, 03:16 AM

It depends, many slaves were better off than the free poor. I brought in a published book in my other thread that stated so.

so?????
when jesus didnt condemn slavery, he is a bigger ******* than i thought he is.

joobz

18th August 2009, 04:14 AM

One could also say it is dishonest not to tell the whole story of the parable and just obsessively go around to other threads saying Jesus condones beating slaves without telling the parable also.
Oh, I'm sorry DOC. I didn't realize there was a context in which it was ok for a perfect god to condone beating slaves.

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.
Nope. He said it was ok to beat slaves for knowingly or unknowingly going against the master's wishes. Just as long as the beating the unkowning slaves receive is less severe than the knowing slaves.

Christ stated the slave owner (from the parable) would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair?
Slavery is morally wrong and beating people who disobey is barbaric.
There is no "Fair" punishment, except to punish those who would own another human being.

What do YOU think is fair? Do you think it fair that Jesus (who you claim to be god) supported slavery? I sure as hell don't.

joobz

18th August 2009, 04:17 AM

It depends, many slaves were better off than the free poor. I brought in a published book in my other thread that stated so.
So it's acceptable for people to be slaves, becuase they are "better off" that way? And going back to a question asked of you before:
If you believe this, do you also believe that it would be morally acceptable to round up all homeless children and put them into slavery? Afterall, they would be better off, wouldn't they?

eccles

18th August 2009, 04:27 AM

Hey DOC,
Be my slave. I need some one to clean my house, do the washing and the dishes.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

18th August 2009, 04:28 AM

eccles

18th August 2009, 04:41 AM

eerrrm you can READ the playboy?
i know noone doing that.

No, my wife won't let me. Or would not if I had a wife. I'm not married and have no kids. I'm happy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

eccles

18th August 2009, 04:43 AM

marriage is what you need :d

no bloody way
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

18th August 2009, 04:57 AM

Marduk

18th August 2009, 04:58 AM

Slavery is morally wrong and beating people who disobey is barbaric.
should read "Non consensual slavery is morally wrong"
;)

18th August 2009, 05:03 AM

DOC? is it a Sin that we dont have real slaves anymore? or is wageslavery enough cruel for God and his nutty son Jesus?

amb

18th August 2009, 05:30 AM

No, my wife won't let me. Or would not if I had a wife. I'm not married and have no kids. I'm happy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

Not playing fair are we? Why should just us married guys suffer. Please get yourself a wife as soon as possible. A little Southern Italian lady would be ideal for you. I know of a couple if you're interested. :D

amb

18th August 2009, 05:33 AM

Does archeology prove there was marriage in ancient times? Or were the ancients a lot smarter than us?

Akhenaten

18th August 2009, 05:37 AM

There seems to have been a fair bit of polygamy around, which to me implies multiple mothers-in-law.

I'll vote for "less smarter" on the strength of that.

eccles

18th August 2009, 05:50 AM

1 Kings 9 15 Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the LORD's temple, his own palace, the supporting terraces, [e] the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. 16 (Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife. 17 And Solomon rebuilt Gezer.) He built up Lower Beth Horon, 18 Baalath, and Tadmor [f] in the desert, within his land, 19 as well as all his store cities and the towns for his chariots and for his horses [g] —whatever he desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon and throughout all the territory he ruled.

And how about Solomon, the Dirty Old Man.

1 Kings 11
1But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:

2Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

4For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

6And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.

7Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

8And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.

9And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

amb

18th August 2009, 05:53 AM

There seems to have been a fair bit of polygamy around, which to me implies multiple mothers-in-law.

I'll vote for "less smarter" on the strength of that.

More than one mother in law? What a nightmare! :eek:

amb

18th August 2009, 05:56 AM

eccles

18th August 2009, 06:01 AM

I have a twin set of deep fryers for cooking. The left one I call Friar Benedict and the right one Friar Dominic.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

DOC

18th August 2009, 10:02 AM

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.

Nope. He said it was ok to beat slaves for knowingly or unknowingly going against the master's wishes. Just as long as the beating the unkowning slaves receive is less severe than the knowing slaves.

You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?

Ladewig

18th August 2009, 10:56 AM

You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?

If you don't beat slaves who beat other slaves, then the slaves will never learn that beating slaves is wrong.

Ladewig

18th August 2009, 11:17 AM

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.

Christ stated the slave owner (from the parable) would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair?

Are we talking about Luke 12?

12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Am I reading it wrong? It appears to me that there are three servants. One who beats the others and is "cut in sunder" for his wrongdoing. A second who knows the date of the master's return, does not prepare for it , and gets beaten with "many stripes." A third who does not know the date of the master's return, does not prepare for the return, and gets beaten with "few stripes."

joobz

18th August 2009, 12:13 PM

You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?
Slavery is wrong. The only just answer is the freeing of the slaves and punishing the master for owning slaves in the first place.

Of course, in this parable, god is the slave master, so make of that what you will.

But admittedly, this is only my modern liberal bias which claims slavery is wrong. I agree that I'm being very insensitive, by not respecting the differences in culture between today and 2 thousand years ago. If only Jesus had some sort of divine prespective that would have provided him with this insight of the modern era. Maybe he would have chosen some other analogy to describe our relationship with god. An analogy that wouldn't have been used for centuries to justify the enslavement of one group of people by another.

DOC

18th August 2009, 12:44 PM

Of course, in this parable, god is the slave master, so make of that what you will.

Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this:

..and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

paximperium

18th August 2009, 12:49 PM

joobz

18th August 2009, 12:49 PM

Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this:

A rose by any other name, would still beat his servants?

ETA: I noticed that you ignored the substance of my post. you are forced into the corner to admit
either
1.) Jesus wasn't divine and simply a guy limited in vision by his time.
2.) If jesus was divine, then god IS completely ok with beating slaves and is immoral.

Ladewig

18th August 2009, 12:56 PM

Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this:

..and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

This post is so absurd that I am going to have to reconsider if you are a troll. How can anyone with as much familiarity with the Bible as you not understand that the characters in a parable represent other people?

Surely you don't believe that the parable of the mustard seed is advice on how to grow a garden.

DOC

18th August 2009, 12:56 PM

You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?

Slavery is wrong. The only just answer is the freeing of the slaves and punishing the master for owning slaves in the first place.

I just noticed the parable doesn't say slave, it says servant. A servant would be there voluntarily. And even some slaves at that time voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts. So if this servant who the master put in charge of his household was there voluntarily what punishment would you give him for beating several menservants and maidens?

DOC

18th August 2009, 01:05 PM

How can anyone with as much familiarity with the Bible as you not understand that the characters in a parable represent other people?

The parable did not say God is the slave master as joobz said. One could imply that, but the parable did not say that.

Ladewig

18th August 2009, 01:08 PM

I just noticed the parable doesn't say slave, it says servant. A servant would be there voluntarily. And even some slaves at that time voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts. So if this servant who the master put in charge of his household was there voluntarily what punishment would you give him for beating several menservants and maidens?

I would follow Jesus's advice and kill him (Luke 12:46).

Just kidding. On a more serious note, DOC, you keep asking that question as if it were some insightful point that proves your case. It does not.

Ladewig

18th August 2009, 01:11 PM

The parable did not say God is the slave master as joobz said. One could imply that, but the parable did not say that.

Fine, let's do it your way. Tell us, DOC, who does the "Lord of the servant" represent in this parable. What exactly is the lesson of this parable?

joobz

18th August 2009, 01:15 PM

I just noticed the parable doesn't say slave, it says servant. A servant would be there voluntarily. And even some slaves at that time voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts.
It's slave or servant depending on which version of the bible you are reading.
Do you think it acceptable to sell one's self into slavery?

So if this servant who the master put in charge of his household was there voluntarily what punishment would you give him for beating several menservants and maidens?
that's a big if. But let's pretend that it is true.
I would fire the servant who did the beating and file charges with the police regarding his physical assault of my other servants.

What would you do? Would you kill him like Jesus suggests to do?

joobz

18th August 2009, 01:22 PM

I just noticed the parable doesn't say slave, it says servant.
I just did a quick check to the Codex Sinaiticus
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=35&chapter=12&lid=en&side=r&verse=48&zoomSlider=0

The word that is used in the greek is Doulos, whose primary translation is slave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doulos

Sorry. Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves.

DOC

18th August 2009, 01:22 PM

Fine, let's do it your way. Tell us, DOC, who does the "Lord of the servant" represent in this parable. What exactly is the lesson of this parable?

The lesson is a servant will be punished for disobeying the will of a Master. It doesn't say how any other master would punish, but it does imply there will be punishment.

Ladewig

18th August 2009, 01:25 PM

The lesson is a servant will be punished for disobeying the will of a Master. It doesn't say how any other master would punish, but it does imply there will be punishment.

Then what is the purpose of mentioning the third slave? If the message is obey the master or be punished severely, then why is there a beating on the slave that didn't disobey the master's orders?

Hokulele

18th August 2009, 01:25 PM

The lesson is a servant will be punished for disobeying the will of a Master. It doesn't say how any other master would punish, but it does imply there will be punishment.

And this is a good thing for slaves, how?

Ladewig

18th August 2009, 01:30 PM

A more open question on slavery in Luke 12?

Does the line (verse 49) immediately following the parable relate to the interpretation of the parable or is it part of a completely separate thought?

12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

pakeha

18th August 2009, 01:50 PM

Here's something I found on an Evangelical site on the subject of slavery and the bible.
Others point to cultural differences on issues such as slavery, homosexuality and the role of women. Unfortunately, these protestations usually have more to do with the desire to avoid the first-century pattern than with a concern for the truth of God's word. We can be grateful that we do not have a system of slavery like that of first-century Rome or 18th-century America. However, the Christian cannot believe that slavery is inherently evil and simultaneously accept the Bible's teaching: in the Old Testament, God not only accepts slavery, but enjoins, establishes and approves of it. Similarly, we may not like war, but the Bible has little support for the pacifist. A Christian may work towards the overthrow of slavery and the cessation of war, but he cannot argue that they are inherently wrong or against the mind and character of God. The Bible often turns our contemporary values and perspectives upside down.

...In what sense should we be first-century people? The word of God which came to them is the word of God to us, and we must mould our culture and our lifestyle in accordance with it. Within that word there is enormous cultural flexibility and freedom, but we must be flexible where it is flexible, and obedient to its clear commands.

Added:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:u3QSGh7c_V4J:matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/1271+libraries+1st+century+Rome&cd=7&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es

Slavery's a touchy subject with Christians, obviously.
Up to what point should a present day Christian adopt a 1st century world view?

DOC

18th August 2009, 02:03 PM

So if this servant who the master put in charge of his household was there voluntarily what punishment would you give him for beating several menservants and maidens?

that's a big if. But let's pretend that it is true.
I would fire the servant who did the beating and file charges with the police regarding his physical assault of my other servants.

Well there was no police back then so I would assume you would want the master to walk into town (who knows how many miles that would be) and get a Roman guard. You then want the Roman guard to go back to your house and arrest the man and walk back to town and put him in jail for a trial.

OK assume this unlikely scenario is what happened. How long do you think would be a just period for this servant who beat several of your menservants and maidens to spend in a Roman jail?

Hokulele

18th August 2009, 02:07 PM

Anything would be more just than a beating.

joobz

18th August 2009, 02:11 PM

Well there was no police back then so I would assume you would want the master to walk into town (who knows how many miles that would be) and get a Roman guard. You then want the Roman guard to go back to your house and arrest the man and walk back to town and put him in jail for a trial.

OK assume this unlikely scenario is what happened. How long do you think would be a just period for this servant who beat several of your menservants and maidens to spend in a Roman jail?

well, first off, The original text was "SLAVE" not servant. As such, my original verdict holds.

I find the master guilty of owning slaves (an unjust act). I would free them and hand the master over to the authorities.

As for your false analogy, if sending to the police was not possible, I would evict the servant without pay and tend to the injured servants and ensure that they are taken care of.

DOC

18th August 2009, 02:16 PM

Then what is the purpose of mentioning the third slave? If the message is obey the master or be punished severely, then why is there a beating on the slave that didn't disobey the master's orders?

He did go against what the servant master wanted, he just wasn't aware it was wrong and will be punished but not as severely as the one that knew. For example if you have promiscuous sex and didn't know it was wrong you might be punished by getting a STD.

joobz

18th August 2009, 02:18 PM

He did go against what the servant master wanted, he just wasn't aware it was wrong and will be punished but not as severely as the one that knew.
Yup. Jesus says you can beat a slave who didn't know he did wrong. Jesus was very moral.

For example if you have promiscuous sex and didn't know it was wrong you might be punished by getting a STD.
Wow, that says a lot more about you than I would have cared to know. I guess all of those people in New Orleans Deserved Katrina?

DOC

18th August 2009, 02:22 PM

well, first off, The original text was "SLAVE" not servant. As such, my original verdict holds.So the master put a slave in charge of several menservants and several maidens.

ETA

That doesn't sound like much of a slave to me.

joobz

18th August 2009, 02:28 PM

So the master put a slave in charge of several menservants and several maidens.

ETA

That doesn't sound like much of a slave to me.
In Jesus' parable, The master put one slave in charge of other slaves. (both men and women).

the master then killed the one slave in charge and beats the other two, regardless if they knew what they did wrong. Nice master.

DOC

18th August 2009, 02:30 PM

As for your false analogy, if sending to the police was not possible, I would evict the servant without pay and tend to the injured servants and ensure that they are taken care of.

So in your mind justice is served by firing a servant and letting him walk for beating several menservants and several maidens?

DOC

18th August 2009, 02:34 PM

In Jesus' parable, The master put one slave in charge of other slaves. (both men and women).

You're adding words that aren't there, it says he beat several menservants and several maidens.

Cleon

18th August 2009, 02:35 PM

So the master put a slave in charge of several menservants and several maidens.

ETA

That doesn't sound like much of a slave to me.

Then you know as little about the practice of slavery as you do about history.

Giving some slaves "authority" over the others was standard practice in slave-holding societies, whether in the US South or ancient Rome.

joobz

18th August 2009, 02:35 PM

So in your mind justice is served by firing a servant and letting him walk for beating several menservants and several maidens?Well according to your bizarre set of conditions where there isn't a police force and being unemployed is terrible. Yes, as I would have withheld wages and attended to those in need.

But that isn't the parable, is it?
Let me ask you:
What would you do if you found a slave who had beaten other slaves?

What would be your justice?

DOC

18th August 2009, 02:37 PM

So in your mind chasing this topic instead of talking about archeology proving the Bible is proving your point?I didn't bring up this, Joobz brought up slavery when we were talking about manuscripts. This is what happens when joobz is allowed to constantly bring up slavery no matter what we are talking about. I've already reported this awhile back but it still continues.

ETA

He should put up a thread about this. Instead of interjecting it every couple of pages no matter what the discussion.

joobz

18th August 2009, 02:47 PM

I didn't bring up this, Joobz brought up slavery when we were talking about manuscripts. This is what happens when joobz is allowed to constantly bring up slavery no matter what we are talking about. I've already reported this awhile back but it still continues.

ETA

He should put up a thread about this. Instead of interjecting it every couple of pages no matter what the discussion.I'm sorry if you are so bothered by this discussion.

I brought it up to directly demonstrate that your appeal to numbers fallacy was a double edged sword. IF you want to claim that the bible is true because there are 25,000 manuscripts, than you must also admit that this means the bible isn't wrong when it shows jesus condoning slavery.

joobz

18th August 2009, 03:04 PM

You're adding words that aren't there, it says he beat several menservants and several maidens.
The words used in the original greek are paidas and paidiskas, which are both variations of the word slave.

Simon39759

18th August 2009, 03:20 PM

Are you calling Wikkipedia, a site founded by an atheist, a religiously neutral site?

ETA

For example Wiki's article on Diocletian does not mention the thousands of Christians killed by him whereas many other sites do.

What?
That's a silly argument.

Who cares who invented Wikipedia. What matters is who fills in the definition, and that, in contrast with other biased websites such as the apologetists ones you often link for, is everybody that wants to.
Hence Wikipedia is as biased as the persons that fill it. Considering the site is in English, considering that most people in the world connected to the internet are Americans, considering that Christianity still is the dominant Religion in the U.S, far outshining Atheism, it makes little sense to argue about Wikipedia being atheistic.
Hell, even you could go and 'correct' the article. And, yes, I agree that the 20.000 martyrs should be mentioned, along with the mention that the only reference to them belong to contemporary Christian texts and that the numbers are suspiciously high, likely an exaggeration for propaganda purpose.

But, your argument, makes just about as much sense as arguing that, because Bill Gates is also an atheist, any website accessed through internet explorer is to be considered biased.

Just silly.

Well there was no police back then so I would assume you would want the master to walk into town (who knows how many miles that would be) and get a Roman guard. You then want the Roman guard to go back to your house and arrest the man and walk back to town and put him in jail for a trial.

OK assume this unlikely scenario is what happened. How long do you think would be a just period for this servant who beat several of your menservants and maidens to spend in a Roman jail?

Hum?
The Romans had a police, they might have been called guards but they certainly was a law enforcement system, coupled with a complex justice system.
As for the argument about the distance being travelled... You realized the answer is 'as much as the made-up example requires'.
It is a parable. A metaphore. There was not really a slave.

The only thing is that Jesus mentions a disobedient slave and use this perfectly accepted punishment, Jesus and the society that produced him, as a metaphor of God justice, never stopping to mention that, by the way, slavery is wrong.
The dynamic of imaginary slave transportation is of no relevance to that.

boloboffin

18th August 2009, 03:23 PM

Hokulele

18th August 2009, 04:25 PM

What?
That's a silly argument.

Who cares who invented Wikipedia. What matters is who fills in the definition, and that, in contrast with other biased websites such as the apologetists ones you often link for, is everybody that wants to.
Hence Wikipedia is as biased as the persons that fill it. Considering the site is in English, considering that most people in the world connected to the internet are Americans, considering that Christianity still is the dominant Religion in the U.S, far outshining Atheism, it makes little sense to argue about Wikipedia being atheistic.
Hell, even you could go and 'correct' the article. And, yes, I agree that the 20.000 martyrs should be mentioned, along with the mention that the only reference to them belong to contemporary Christian texts and that the numbers are suspiciously high, likely an exaggeration for propaganda purpose.

But, your argument, makes just about as much sense as arguing that, because Bill Gates is also an atheist, any website accessed through internet explorer is to be considered biased.

Just silly.

I can't wait for the next time DOC links to the "Parade of Martyrs" or the "Best Selling Books of All Time!!!!!!" lists on Wikipedia.

tsig

18th August 2009, 05:33 PM

You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?

I'd lay his back open with the lash then sell him down the river.

Elizabeth I

18th August 2009, 06:07 PM

I just noticed the parable doesn't say slave, it says servant. A servant would be there voluntarily. And even some slaves at that time voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts.

And here we go again. Many girls in other countries sell themselves or are sold by their families into sexual slavery. Are they better off?

So in your mind justice is served by firing a servant and letting him walk for beating several menservants and several maidens?

Well, according to you, slavery in the NT era was all beer and skittles, so if someone were cut loose from his soft job, he would starve to death, freeze to death, and die of thirst, probably within minutes of being dismissed.

He should put up a thread about this. Instead of interjecting it every couple of pages no matter what the discussion.

Except that you'd run a thousand miles away from it and never show your face.

Simon39759

18th August 2009, 06:47 PM

RoboTimbo

18th August 2009, 07:08 PM

He should put up a thread about this. Instead of interjecting it every couple of pages no matter what the discussion.

Very good suggestion.

DOC, I've yet to see an answer to this: Do you agree with the one true religion that it was moral for the master to give the innocent slave stripes?

boloboffin

18th August 2009, 07:08 PM

Except that you'd run a thousand miles away from it and never show your face.

Oh, you're kidding. DOC chased this rabbit for three pages or so when it was off-topic in another thread. To not show up and discuss the issue when it's now a separate thread would be...

..revealing.

The Platypus

18th August 2009, 08:32 PM

In response to the standard "servant" copout,

So if i had a maid and she doesn't do a good job vacuuming, i am supposed to beat her?

Ladewig

18th August 2009, 10:10 PM

From the "Evidence of Gospel writers telling the truth" thread

In order to keep order in eternity logic says there must be punishment for violating the spiritual laws.

On the other hand you believe a servant who beats multiple men and woman should be fired and allowed to walk away with no other punishment. That beater of men and woman is likely to do it again if he knows there are guys like you who will basically slap his wrist.

I take it that you agree with the punishment Jesus describes in His parable - specifically the execution of the slave. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaking your position.

As for "guys like you" comment. All the other guys like us have already said that slavery is wrong. Beating a slave and executing a slave are both wrong because slavery is wrong.

Ladewig

18th August 2009, 10:18 PM

He did go against what the servant master wanted, he just wasn't aware it was wrong and will be punished but not as severely as the one that knew. For example if you have promiscuous sex and didn't know it was wrong you might be punished by getting a STD.

Ah, so you are one of those who believes STDs are punishments. So when a pregnant woman contracts syphilis and her baby is born with that disease, what specific wrongdoing has the baby committed that requires such a severe punishment? When a child contracts an STD when she is raped, what specific wrongdoing has the child committed that requires such a severe punishment?

DOC, go peddle your nutbag morality somewhere else, because logical people see it as the offensive tripe that it is. And yes, we know how popular it is and has been, but that does not make it any else ridiculous than it is.

. . . . . . . . .
ETA: I am not condemning all Christianity, I am condemning DOC's view of Christianity.

amb

19th August 2009, 12:20 AM

pakeha

19th August 2009, 01:55 AM

Well there was no police back then so I would assume you would want the master to walk into town (who knows how many miles that would be) and get a Roman guard. You then want the Roman guard to go back to your house and arrest the man and walk back to town and put him in jail for a trial.

OK assume this unlikely scenario is what happened. How long do you think would be a just period for this servant who beat several of your menservants and maidens to spend in a Roman jail?

Thanks, DOC, for posting up a perfect 'strawman' argument.
It would be difficult to have done a better job and I think you are to be congratulated.

How very interesting it is that DOC neither researched the original Greek for the words slave and manservant, nor thank the poster who did so.

paximperium

19th August 2009, 02:53 AM

We'll never see DOC here. He will chicken out like he always does.

19th August 2009, 04:43 AM

thats some really sick stuff right here.

Elizabeth I

19th August 2009, 12:02 PM

We'll never see DOC here. He will chicken out like he always does.

I want it known that I predicted it first: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5020573&postcount=65

When do I get the million?

RoboTimbo

19th August 2009, 12:41 PM

We'll never see DOC here. He will chicken out like he always does.

Alternatively, he will show up here and claim that he has already addressed this in posts #xyz, abc, 123, etc. and doesn't need to keep rehashing it.

Then he will rehash 11 of 12 apostles and his 950 posts in another thread and Father O'Connor is still a priest as far as anyone knows.

joobz

19th August 2009, 01:56 PM

This is the parable in question:

42 And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

DOC’s primary defense is that the parable is about how one should always behave as though god will come at any minute. That way, when he does come, he will reward you. If, however you were sinning, then he will punish you severely, even if you didn’t know god was real.

Now the problem I have isn’t the “moral” of the parable, but the analogy used in the first place. Jesus used master/slave relationship to explain his point. This shows that Jesus has given a tacit approval of the master/slave relationship and it is THIS that I find morally unacceptable.
Let’s illustrate my point using an alternate analogy
43 Blessed is that Ho whom her pimp will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make her ruler over all that he has. 45 But if that Ho says in her heart, ‘My pimp is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the shemale and female prostitutes, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the pimp of that Ho will come on a day when she is not looking for him, and at an hour when she is not aware, and will cut her in two and give away all her stuff. 47 And that Ho who knew his pimp’s will, and did not have her money ready according to his will, shall be bitch-slapped severely. 48 But she who did not know, yet did things he did not like, shall be bitch-slapped firmly, but not as severely. For every Ho to whom much is given, from her much will be required; and to Hos given a lot, They better give a lot back.
DOC, would you consider this second parable acceptable? Why or why not?

Akhenaten

19th August 2009, 02:18 PM

So this is where you all went. Splitters!

Nothing much to add, but I don't think Doc's had a chance to ignore me in this thread yet.

Slaves didn't build the Pyramids.

kthxbai

joobz

19th August 2009, 02:21 PM

So this is where you all went. Splitters!

Nothing much to add, but I don't think Doc's had a chance to ignore me in this thread yet.

Slaves didn't build the Pyramids.

kthxbai
They were servants.:p

Beerina

19th August 2009, 04:31 PM

SO do you admit that your appeal to numbers (20,000 manuscript claim) isn't valid then?
You don't get it both ways DOC:

Either the number of manuscipts makes the luke stories AND Jesus' support of slavery more likely true, or the appeal to numbers is meaningless.

It could also make it less likely to be true.

It could also be irrelevant. It could simply correlate to its use as an item that's profitable and not overly and obviously deadly.

This is where the meme concept comes in strong. It's an evolved collection of stories and moral fables and rules, some of which reflect "truth" in the sense that their rules of thumb work in the real world. E.g. the golden rule, the 10 Commandments, various parables and so on. Some also only sort-of-work. Some don't work at all.

It also included meme "defense mechanisms" that are part of the overall over-meme like "Well, the Devil is tricking my opponent into thinking that" and "Well, God is testing us" and "Well, mysterious are the ways of God" and, more recently, "Well, God lets evil happen for a greater good, which involves free choice and the consequences thereof" (justifying sitting idly by the rape/murder of babies, among other things)

Thus the number of writings reflects the amount of "spread" of the idea i.e. meme, which in turn simply derives from its successful evolution to dominance in spreading among people.

Akhenaten

20th August 2009, 03:38 AM

I'd lay his back open with the lash then sell him down the river.

I've been meaning to mention that. There's been a noticeable drop-off in the quality we've been getting down here lately.

Don't make me come up there.

Akhenaten

20th August 2009, 03:42 AM

They were servants.:p

"All men are willing, and great will be their reward, who toil in the Aten's service."

- old jnugle saying

tsig

20th August 2009, 04:36 AM

I've been meaning to mention that. There's been a noticeable drop-off in the quality we've been getting down here lately.

Don't make me come up there.

We are obviously talking about different rivers.

boloboffin

20th August 2009, 04:22 PM

A bump for DOC, who seems to have lost interest in this topic now that it's not derailing another thread.

RoboTimbo

20th August 2009, 04:41 PM

A bump for DOC, who seems to have lost interest in this topic now that it's not derailing another thread.

His interest is sated. He was interested in getting rid of the topic at the earliest convenience. Maybe he needs a visitor message with the link.

amb

21st August 2009, 02:37 AM

Or perhaps he has realized that there is no defence from any source for slavery, try as he might. And it's further proof that the whole babble is bunkum. :)

pakeha

21st August 2009, 02:48 AM

Any bible-based justification for slavery sooner or later has to come to grips with apartheit and I don't blame DOC for not wanting to go there.

21st August 2009, 02:49 AM

Jesus the Slaveryapoligist.

amb

21st August 2009, 04:23 AM

Any bible-based justification for slavery sooner or later has to come to grips with apartheit and I don't blame DOC for not wanting to go there.

All done in the name of god. At least that was their justification.
Never in the history of this planet has more damage been done than in the name of religion of any type. :mad:

joobz

21st August 2009, 04:38 AM

All done in the name of god. At least that was their justification.
Never in the history of this planet has more damage been done than in the name of religion of any type. :mad:
Arguably the real reason for most of what you speak of battle over resources. Religion is a patsy motivator.

I don't say this to claim that religion is innocent, but rather if it was even possible to remove religion from the equation, you would still have the driving force for attrocity.

pakeha

21st August 2009, 04:56 AM

I have to agree with you there, joobz.
Certainly we have daily proof of that.
Would that we didn't.
But somehow crimes against humanity perpetrated for the glory of god, or to help evangelise the gospel really take the cake.

amb

21st August 2009, 05:06 AM

I'm thinking of the Crusades, the almost destruction of the Jews, 9/11, the Inquisition, all done in the name of the lard/allah. There's no argument that man's greed is just as culpable. Remove religion though, and up to three quarters of the world's problems will vanish overnight.

pakeha

21st August 2009, 05:32 AM

A terrible thing to say, amb.
Would I could disagree with you.

amb

21st August 2009, 08:27 PM

Only a deaf and dumb and blind person could disagree. :)

RoboTimbo

5th September 2009, 05:47 AM

No defense at all, DOC?

paximperium

5th September 2009, 12:37 PM

Looks like the cowardly Slavery Apologist continues to run away from this topic.

DOC

5th September 2009, 02:00 PM

...I didn't exaggerate anything. Jesus states that it is acceptable to beat a slave...

It is an exaggeration, Jesus never "said" it is acceptable to beat a slave. The parable of the slave (actually the verse says servant), is not about the institution of slavery, it is a parable (that the people of that 1st century mindset can understand) that implies that people who disobey God will be punished and severity of that punishment is contingent on different factors.

By the way the servant (or slave) whom the master punished in the parable beat several menservants and beat several maidens when he knew it was wrong to do so.

paximperium

5th September 2009, 02:07 PM

It is an exaggeration, Jesus never "said" it is acceptable to beat a slave.
True, he never "said" anything that was ever recorded down.

paximperium

5th September 2009, 02:16 PM

The parable of the slave (actually the verse says servant), Not according to the original Greek.

is not about the institution of slavery, it is a parable (that the people of that 1st century mindset can understand) that implies that people who disobey God will be punished and severity of that punishment is contingent on different factors. Ahhhh, so Jesus is implying that everyone is a slave and that if you disobey, god will punish you. For some reason you believe that this is better than the original point?

By the way the servant (or slave) whom the master punished in the parable beat several menservants and beat several maidens when he knew it was wrong to do so.And you consider that acceptable? What a despicable and terrible morality you have. I would even call it evil.

joobz

5th September 2009, 02:27 PM

It is an exaggeration, Jesus never "said" it is acceptable to beat a slave. The parable of the slave (actually the verse says servant), is not about the institution of slavery, it is a parable (that the people of that 1st century mindset can understand) that implies that people who disobey God will be punished and severity of that punishment is contingent on different factors.
1.) The paragraph says slave as defined by the oldest known complete bible.
I just did a quick check to the Codex Sinaiticus
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=35&chapter=12&lid=en&side=r&verse=48&zoomSlider=0 (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=35&chapter=12&lid=en&side=r&verse=48&zoomSlider=0)

The word that is used in the greek is Doulos, whose primary translation is slave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doulos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doulos)

Sorry. Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves.

2.) Jesus uses beating of slaves as a lesson. He didn't condemn the practice but used it as an example of how god treats us. The condoning of the practice is inherent otherwise the parable falls apart.

By the way the servant (or slave) whom the master punished in the parable beat several menservants and beat several maidens when he knew it was wrong to do so.
Actually the bible says clearly that if a slave knowingly or unknowingly breaks a rule, that slave is beaten. Only the severity of the beating changes.

DOC

5th September 2009, 02:44 PM

I just did a quick check to the Codex Sinaiticus
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=35&chapter=12&lid=en&side=r&verse=48&zoomSlider=0

The word that is used in the greek is Doulos, whose primary translation is slave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doulos

Sorry. Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves.

The second definition of doulos is Attendant or Servant and that is the definition that the scholars of the King James version chose to use in Luke 12:47

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1401

ETA:

the above website says this also regarding doulos in the King James:

KJV (127) - bond, 6; bondman, 1; servant, 120;

So in 127 times doulos is translated in the King James it is never translated as slave.

joobz

5th September 2009, 03:02 PM

The second definition of doulos is Attendant or Servant and that is the definition that the scholars of the King James version chose to use in Luke 12:47

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1401

ETA:

the above website says this also regarding doulos in the King James:

KJV (127) - bond, 6; bondman, 1; servant, 120;

So in 127 times doulos is translated in the King James it is never translated as slave.
A bondservant = slave.

ETA: Do you think beating servants is any better?

DOC

5th September 2009, 03:16 PM

Do you think beating servants is any better?I'd rather receive lashes and maybe get some scars on my back then lose my room, board, and back pay, (as was the punishment you thought fair) which at that time and place could put me at risk of starving to death or even freezing to death since it does get cold there at night.

ETA:

And then I might be forced to sell myself into slavery (as was the custom at that time) in order to keep from starving and freezing.

paximperium

5th September 2009, 03:21 PM

A bondservant = slave.

ETA: Do you think beating servants is any better?
I'd rather receive lashes and maybe get some scars on my back then lose my room, board, and back pay, (as was your punishment) which at that time and place could put me at risk of starving to death or even freezing to death since it does get cold there at night.

ETA:

And then I might be forced to sell myself into slavery (as was the custom at that time) in order to keep from starving and freezing.
So DOC's answer is yes.

joobz

5th September 2009, 03:25 PM

I'd rather receive lashes and maybe get some scars on my back then lose my room, board, and back pay, (as was the punishment you thought fair) which at that time and place could put me at risk of starving to death or even freezing to death since it does get cold there at night.
beating is not a way to teach nor treat a servant or slave. I don't beat my grad students, my children, or anyone to punish. I seriously worry that you think it acceptable.

ETA:

And then I might be forced to sell myself into slavery (as was the custom at that time) in order to keep from starving and freezing.
Do you believe it would be accpetable right now to sell homeless children into slavery?

DOC

5th September 2009, 03:36 PM

So DOC's answer is yes.And how would you punish a servant at that time and place who beat several menservants and beat several maidens when he knew it was wrong to do so?

Ladewig

5th September 2009, 03:38 PM

By the way the servant (or slave) whom the master punished in the parable beat several menservants and beat several maidens when he knew it was wrong to do so.

Why do you keep ignore the fact that the slaves that didn't beat the other slaves also received beatings? It has been pointed out to you several times, but you keep avoiding that part of the parable. It makes you seem dishonest.

DOC

5th September 2009, 03:41 PM

Why do you keep ignore the fact that the slaves that didn't beat the other slaves also received beatings? It has been pointed out to you several times, but you keep avoiding that part of the parable. It makes you seem dishonest.

It doesn't say that in the verse?

Elizabeth I

5th September 2009, 04:37 PM

The second definition of doulos is Attendant or Servant and that is the definition that the scholars of the King James version chose to use in Luke 12:47

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1401

ETA:

the above website says this also regarding doulos in the King James:

KJV (127) - bond, 6; bondman, 1; servant, 120;

So in 127 times doulos is translated in the King James it is never translated as slave.

They also translated "holy spirit" as "holy ghost." Not sure their translation skills were wholly reliable.

joobz

5th September 2009, 05:07 PM

And how would you punish a servant at that time and place who beat several menservants and beat several maidens when he knew it was wrong to do so?
If I was a god, and I was teaching the ultimate morality, I would explain,
1.) slavery is immoral. One person does not have right over anothers life and work.
2.) punishing a person does not require physical abuse. Removal of privileges and rewarding of good behavior is a more moral and humanitarian means of running employees. (Assuming you have employees and not slaves, which as I already said is immoral).

What would you say if you were god and were teaching the ultimate morality and not some cult leader who wouldn't know better?

DOC

6th September 2009, 08:30 PM

So DOC's answer is yes.

And how would you punish a servant at that time and place who beat several menservants and beat several maidens when he knew it was wrong to do so?

I guess Pax -- who doesn't seem to mind calling other people cowards -- isn't going to answer this question.

joobz

6th September 2009, 08:41 PM

I guess Pax -- who doesn't seem to mind calling other people cowards -- isn't going to answer this question.
I answered it.

And my answer is clearly better than what Jesus supposedly did.

So DOC, given you believe Jesus gave an acceptable answer (as supposedly people were better off as slaves).... Would you condone the enslaving of Homeless children?

DOC

6th September 2009, 09:06 PM

If I was a god, and I was teaching the ultimate morality, I would explain,
1.) slavery is immoral. One person does not have right over anothers life and work.
2.) punishing a person does not require physical abuse. Removal of privileges and rewarding of good behavior is a more moral and humanitarian means of running employees. (Assuming you have employees and not slaves, which as I already said is immoral).

What would you say if you were god and were teaching the ultimate morality and not some cult leader who wouldn't know better?

Jesus wasn't talking about the institution of slavery per se. He was talking about how there is going to be a price to pay for breaking God's rules.

Joobz, you not being God, think temporally (and are 100% concerned about the here and now) whereas God thinks eternally. In the scope of eternity 10 minutes of lashes and suffering means nothing. The whole purpose of the parable was to drive home to people that in God's eternal world there is a price to pay for disobedience to rules.

But there is also a great reward for following God's rules as demonstrated by Christ saying the servant who followed the rules received control over "all" the master owned, which you never seem to mention.

DOC

6th September 2009, 09:12 PM

I answered it.

And my answer is clearly better than what Jesus supposedly did.

So DOC, given you believe Jesus gave an acceptable answer (as supposedly people were better off as slaves).... Would you condone the enslaving of Homeless children?

In a perfect world no, but in the world that existed in Jesus' time under Roman occupation and where slavery was a way of life, if slavery meant not starving to death or not freezing to death then that would be preferrable to starving and freezing.

Elizabeth I

6th September 2009, 09:57 PM

Jesus wasn't talking about the institution of slavery per se. He was talking about how there is going to be a price to pay for breaking God's rules.

Joobz, you not being God, think temporally (and are 100% concerned about the here and now) whereas God thinks eternally. In the scope of eternity 10 minutes of lashes and suffering means nothing. The whole purpose of the parable was to drive home to people that in God's eternal world there is a price to pay for disobedience to rules.

But there is also a great reward for following God's rules as demonstrated by Christ saying the servant who followed the rules received control over "all" the master owned, which you never seem to mention.

What you seem unwilling to see is that by choosing slavery as his metaphor, Jesus implied approval of it. There were any number of other images he could have selected, but, no, he went with slavery.

In a perfect world no, but in the world that existed in Jesus' time under Roman occupation and where slavery was a way of life, if slavery meant not starving to death or not freezing to death then that would be preferrable to starving and freezing.

OK, so I guess all those kids starving and dying in Darfur better be sold into slavery right now.

paximperium

6th September 2009, 11:09 PM

I guess Pax -- who doesn't seem to mind calling other people cowards -- isn't going to answer this question.
If it was against my orders. They are fired on the spot.

If I never told them never to do so, I would remove certain privileges and then a warning and if repeated, they are Fired.

An equal, just and proper punishment, not a punishment of a tyrant or apologists like described in your pathetic Bible.

paximperium

6th September 2009, 11:14 PM

Jesus wasn't talking about the institution of slavery per se. He was talking about how there is going to be a price to pay for breaking God's rules. Which translates to Jesus talking about how everyone must be a slave to YHWH or else.

Joobz, you not being God, think temporally (and are 100% concerned about the here and now) whereas God thinks eternally. In the scope of eternity 10 minutes of lashes and suffering means nothing. The whole purpose of the parable was to drive home to people that in God's eternal world there is a price to pay for disobedience to rules. Be a slave to YHWH or else.

But there is also a great reward for following God's rules as demonstrated by Christ saying the servant who followed the rules received control over "all" the master owned, which you never seem to mention. Be good slave and you will be rewarded or else.

So DOC, given you believe Jesus gave an acceptable answer (as supposedly people were better off as slaves).... Would you condone the enslaving of Homeless children?
In a perfect world no, but in the world that existed in Jesus' time under Roman occupation and where slavery was a way of life, if slavery meant not starving to death or not freezing to death then that would be preferrable to starving and freezing.
DOC's answer is apparently yes.

DOC

7th September 2009, 01:59 AM

If it was against my orders. They are fired on the spot.

If I never told them never to do so, I would remove certain privileges and then a warning and if repeated, they are Fired.

An equal, just and proper punishment, not a punishment of a tyrant or apologists like described in your pathetic Bible.

So you fire a servant. What if he can't get another job, in the Roman occupied area. There is a good chance he starves, freezes at night, or is forced to sell himself into slavery to survive. This is an example of how it is very difficult to try to give quick simple answers to different times, cultures, and economies, as some skeptics try to do support their position.

paximperium

7th September 2009, 02:41 AM

So you fire a servant. What if he can't get another job, in the Roman occupied area. There is a good chance he starves, freezes at night, or is forced to sell himself into slavery to survive. This is an example of how it is very difficult to try to give quick simple answers to different times, cultures, and economies, as some skeptics try to do support their position.
What nonsense. There is nothing hard about this "question".

A "servant" who continues to beat others against my orders is a terrible "servant" and is lucky I don't hand him over to the police to handle. Unlike you, I am not willing to risk my life, my livelihood or the welfare of the entire servant staff for one person who is a sociopath.

Your attempts to apologize for the evils and pro-slavery stance of the Bible is telling. Unlike YOU, I will not justify beatings or violence against a "servant" or anyone just because some god-man says so. In this retarded situation that you have made up, this "servant" has no choices or alternatives and in effect IS A SLAVE. If you think that beating someone for their own good because YOU("Yes, Master, oh yes anything you say master. Master knows best.") feel is it okay and is "moral" then you and your book of myths are truly evil.

CriticalSock

7th September 2009, 03:24 AM

So you fire a servant. What if he can't get another job, in the Roman occupied area. There is a good chance he starves, freezes at night, or is forced to sell himself into slavery to survive. This is an example of how it is very difficult to try to give quick simple answers to different times, cultures, and economies, as some skeptics try to do support their position.

But that's not the point. Nobody cares about this slave, because it's a parable and the slave isn't real.

The point, that you, DOC, keep pirouetting round like Darcy Bustle on speed, is that with all the examples that jesus could draw from life, he chose to use the parable of slaves getting killed and beaten to make his point.

Doing so even though as an omnipotent being he should have known that in later years when mankind had developed it's own morality beyond that of 30AD this would be morally repugnant and would nullify any point he was trying to make with his parable.

On the other hand, if jesus was actually a normal man and a product of his time then that parable is exactly the sort of thing you would expect him to come up with.

So why would jesus write in such a way if he was god on earth, or gods messenger or divine in any way, shape or form? (I don't know what you believe he is).

DOC

7th September 2009, 03:30 AM

What nonsense. There is nothing hard about this "question".

A "servant" who continues to beat others against my orders is a terrible "servant" and is lucky I don't hand him over to the police to handle.

Police in Biblical times -- what police?

Unlike you, I am not willing to risk my life, my livelihood or the welfare of the entire servant staff for one person who is a sociopath.

So you let him go free so he can do the same thing to others. If he does get another job (and thus doesn't have to resort to robbery) he'll figure that if he does beat more servants and maidens the worse that can happen is he'll get fired and if he didn't like the job he might want to get fired.

DOC

7th September 2009, 03:54 AM

But that's not the point. Nobody cares about this slave, because it's a parable and the slave isn't real.

The point, that you, DOC, keep pirouetting round like Darcy Bustle on speed, is that with all the examples that jesus could draw from life, he chose to use the parable of slaves getting killed and beaten to make his point.

Doing so even though as an omnipotent being he should have known that in later years when mankind had developed it's own morality beyond that of 30AD this would be morally repugnant and would nullify any point he was trying to make with his parable.

On the other hand, if jesus was actually a normal man and a product of his time then that parable is exactly the sort of thing you would expect him to come up with.

So why would jesus write in such a way if he was god on earth, or gods messenger or divine in any way, shape or form? (I don't know what you believe he is).

The main focus of the parable is you violate God's laws you get punished, you obey God's laws you get rewarded... Maybe He didn't want to use a kinder gentler parable because he wanted to show there are serious consequences to rebellion against God. In other words God is not flippant about sin -- He takes it very seriously and will punish it, and will punish it harshly if the situation warrants.

CriticalSock

7th September 2009, 04:06 AM

The main focus of the parable is you violate God's laws you get punished, you obey God's laws you get rewarded... Maybe He didn't want to use a kinder gentler parable because he wanted to show there are serious consequences to rebellion against God. In other words God is not flippant about sin -- He takes it very seriously and will punish it, and will punish it harshly if the situation warrants.

Why not a captain and his soldiers then? Or a king and his subjects? It could have the three degrees of punishment still: The soldier that beats his fellow soldiers, the one who knows about an order but doesn't obey it and the classic one who has no idea what he's meant to be doing and gets a thrashing for not doing it anyway.

As an infinitely wise being, why choose the slavery parable? More, as an infinitely wise being who is trying to get his point across to all the generations of mankind down to the last days, why choose something which is going to be irrelevant\repugnant to future people?

amb

7th September 2009, 04:47 AM

Doesn't that prove that the whole N/T or even the O/T for that matter, is a creation of man's imagination? What more proof does DOC need?

joobz

7th September 2009, 05:00 AM

Jesus wasn't talking about the institution of slavery per se. He was talking about how there is going to be a price to pay for breaking God's rules. And he used a slave metaphor to explain this. This gives tacit approval of the slave concept. and even more importantly, shows Jesus condoning BEATING SLAVES.

Joobz, you not being God, think temporally (and are 100% concerned about the here and now) whereas God thinks eternally. In the scope of eternity 10 minutes of lashes and suffering means nothing...or entire lifetime of slavery is no big deal?
Injustice and evil behavior isn't made less horrible because it's a short duration. If this really is god's view (what you say), he's a bigger monster than I would have thought.

The whole purpose of the parable was to drive home to people that in God's eternal world there is a price to pay for disobedience to rules.
Whether you knew they existed or not.. BEcause the god of the bible is a horrible, immoral monster.

But there is also a great reward for following God's rules as demonstrated by Christ saying the servant who followed the rules received control over "all" the master owned, which you never seem to mention.the rewards don't excuse the bad behavior. Slavery is immoral. BEating employees is immoral. Jesus was immoral for condoning these practices. IT doesn't matter how many lollipops and candy bars he gives to people who cowtow to him.

Again, The simple fact that Jesus used beating people as an example demonstrates that he WASN'T a god made flesh, but a man who didn't know anybetter (as he was a product of his time.)

joobz

7th September 2009, 05:04 AM

In a perfect world no, but in the world that existed in Jesus' time under Roman occupation and where slavery was a way of life, if slavery meant not starving to death or not freezing to death then that would be preferrable to starving and freezing.
You know our world, RIGHT NOW, isn't perfect. As such, Do you condone enslaving homeless children TODAY if it would provide them with a more stable life?

amb

7th September 2009, 05:35 AM

Akhenaten

7th September 2009, 05:37 AM

Police in Biblical times -- what police?

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ShemaiAswan.jpg

The chief of police Shemai Aswan, 12th dynasty

reshafim.org (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/law_and_order/police.htm)

During the Middle and New Kingdoms a nationwide police force grew out of the semi-military units securing the borders, which consisted to a large part of Nubian Medjay who had been employed during the late Old Kingdom in accompanying expeditions into the South and policing the frontier region of the country. This police force became identified with these mercenaries to such an extent that in the New Kingdom their ethnonym was synonymous with "police".

Bit-o-Research™

Give it a try, Doc.

joobz

7th September 2009, 05:40 AM

Of course. Enslave the starving Africans and use them as super cheap labor in our factories, for a meal a day and a bed. What an idea. Kill two birds with one stone.
Provide one slave for every household. :rolleyes:
The problem is that this is exactly the view that DOC has to defend if he wishes to maintain that the bible is inerrant or that Jesus was simply wrong.

He's forced to defend slavery (in any form) as acceptable. He's already used the "people sold themselves into it...", with the idea that this somehow makes it more moral.
He's had to argue that beating slaves is ok, because it's only for a few minutes. Yet, god plans to "beat sinners" for eternity. This is even more immoral.

I continue to harp on this point because it shows, quite clearly, that the bible isn't a good source of morality and can make people who would normally be moral, condone horrible things.

pakeha

7th September 2009, 08:01 AM

Sorry to backtrack, but
The second definition of doulos is Attendant or Servant and that is the definition that the scholars of the King James version chose to use in Luke 12:47

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1401

ETA:

the above website says this also regarding doulos in the King James:

KJV (127) - bond, 6; bondman, 1; servant, 120;

So in 127 times doulos is translated in the King James it is never translated as slave.

Is DOC saying his prefered translation is the KJV?
Or just on the subject of the translation of doulos?

pakeha

7th September 2009, 08:13 AM

for more on doulos:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:QJEAPFjXKK0J:www.ntwords.com/slave.htm+doulos+translate+english&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

joobz

7th September 2009, 10:21 AM

for more on doulos:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:QJEAPFjXKK0J:www.ntwords.com/slave.htm+doulos+translate+english&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

DOC's best argument is to pretend history doesn't exist.

paximperium

7th September 2009, 11:04 AM

Police in Biblical times -- what police?
You mean the Herod and the Herodian Kingdom has no police or prisons? What a claim. Please provide evidence on how he maintained law and order.
I guess I always have the Religious law and police to enforce Old Testament laws on slaves...ooops, I mean "servants".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

So you let him go free so he can do the same thing to others. As opposed to what? You beating the hell out of this servant multiple times until they can't work anymore?

If he does get another job (and thus doesn't have to resort to robbery) he'll figure that if he does beat more servants and maidens the worse that can happen is he'll get fired and if he didn't like the job he might want to get fired.I thought you said, he was going to starve and die? Love the sound of a moving goalpost. So firing him without ever beating him the first time would have been fine. I guess you're are the one to decides when to kill this slave after multiple beatings if he continues to disobey.

Sorry DOC, I'm more moral than your evil fantasy god and religion any day.

tsig

7th September 2009, 11:29 AM

tsig

7th September 2009, 11:32 AM

And how would you punish a servant at that time and place who beat several menservants and beat several maidens when he knew it was wrong to do so?

Why are you so hung up on punishing and beating? Do you know of no other way to correct misbehavior?

tsig

7th September 2009, 11:36 AM

In a perfect world no, but in the world that existed in Jesus' time under Roman occupation and where slavery was a way of life, if slavery meant not starving to death or not freezing to death then that would be preferrable to starving and freezing.

Glad you weren't a soldier in the American Revolution. Vally Forge. Forget about it!!

You hold freedom so lightly that you would give it up for three hots and a cot?

tsig

7th September 2009, 11:42 AM

amb

8th September 2009, 03:21 AM

The problem is that this is exactly the view that DOC has to defend if he wishes to maintain that the bible is inerrant or that Jesus was simply wrong.

He's forced to defend slavery (in any form) as acceptable. He's already used the "people sold themselves into it...", with the idea that this somehow makes it more moral.
He's had to argue that beating slaves is ok, because it's only for a few minutes. Yet, god plans to "beat sinners" for eternity. This is even more immoral.

I continue to harp on this point because it shows, quite clearly, that the bible isn't a good source of morality and can make people who would normally be moral, condone horrible things.
Exactly my point.

amb

8th September 2009, 03:23 AM

DOC's best argument is to pretend history doesn't exist.

DOC gets all his history from the bible. If it's not in the bible, it didn't happen.:p

pakeha

8th September 2009, 12:50 PM

KJV, of course.

Lucian

8th September 2009, 02:05 PM

They also translated "holy spirit" as "holy ghost." Not sure their translation skills were wholly reliable.

To be fair, "ghost" has changed its meaning over the centuries. "Halig gast" was a literal translation of "spiritus sanctus;" "ghost" could mean spirit or soul as well as a dead person who haunts houses. You can't fault the KJV translators because a word has changed its meaning. You can, however, blame them for tip-toeing around the slavery issue.

Elizabeth I

8th September 2009, 02:22 PM

To be fair, "ghost" has changed its meaning over the centuries. "Halig gast" was a literal translation of "spiritus sanctus;" "ghost" could mean spirit or soul as well as a dead person who haunts houses. You can't fault the KJV translators because a word has changed its meaning. You can, however, blame them for tip-toeing around the slavery issue.

Weren't they translating from a Greek testament? "Halig gast" looks more like Middle English.

It was always my understanding (admittedly, only from what I was told) that the translators were presented with the Greek, had a choice of several possible translations, and picked the wrong one, thus giving generations of Sunday school kids enjoyable little shivers of horror.

Too bad if it's wrong. It's such a good story. :(

ETA: my Google-fu doesn't seem strong enough to find anything meaningful about this. Maybe one of our posters on this sub-forum with Bible scholarship and criticism credentials can shed some light.

paximperium

8th September 2009, 02:28 PM

Did someone say Ghost? I'm afraid of no ghost.
http://thestuff.nakatomiinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jesus_vs_ghostbusters.jpg

Elizabeth I

8th September 2009, 02:32 PM

Did someone say Ghost? I'm afraid of no ghost.
http://thestuff.nakatomiinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jesus_vs_ghostbusters.jpg

You are so going to hell! :p

Lucian

8th September 2009, 02:39 PM

Weren't they translating from a Greek testament? "Halig gast" looks more like Middle English.

It was always my understanding (admittedly, only from what I was told) that the translators were presented with the Greek, had a choice of several possible translations, and picked the wrong one, thus giving generations of Sunday school kids enjoyable little shivers of horror.

Too bad if it's wrong. It's such a good story. :(

Sorry, I should have been more specific. "Halig gast" goes back to the original conversion of the English (so it's Old English, in fact). At the time of the conversion, it was Latin that they were translating. For a long time, "Holy Ghost" continued to be what that entity was called in English. Some people still say "Holy Ghost" without thinking it's a spook of some sort. At some point, I'm not sure when (but after the KJV), there began to be a preference for Holy Spirit, since "ghost" had narrowed its meaning.

For its time, the KJV was a very good translation. They weren't just translating the Vulgate: they did look at other texts in other languages. They also used fairly simple but elegant language so the text would be accessible to as many people as possible (of course, since then, scholarship has progressed so it's not the most accurate translation, and the language no longer seems simple and accessible since it is archaic).

DOC

11th September 2009, 04:21 PM

Who are atheists to say this is wrong?

Human frakking beings.

And the thousands of slave owners thoughout history (and probably most never read one word of the bible) were human beings too.
This post and three responses moved to the appropriate thread from this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124603). Please do not derail, especially with topics being discussed elsewhere.

pakeha

11th September 2009, 04:33 PM

And the thousands of slave owners thoughout history (and probably most never read one word of the bible) were human beings too.

What does this have to do with the topic?
Isn't there a thread dedicated to this?

paximperium

11th September 2009, 04:48 PM

What does this have to do with the topic?
Isn't there a thread dedicated to this?
Already reported.

pakeha

12th September 2009, 08:41 AM

Thanks, obviously a much more effective action than posting.
Here's something I found on the Ham site about a christian attitude towards slavery:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/ar...itual-slavery/

added- link is down, sorry
Added- let's see if this works
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/09/09/spiritual-slavery/
added- yes!

paximperium

12th September 2009, 11:46 AM

Bumped for DOC.

Elizabeth I

12th September 2009, 11:57 AM

Bumped for DOC.

What a hope!

DOC

15th September 2009, 02:47 PM

joobz

15th September 2009, 02:54 PM

Does the following verse sound like someone who supports "harmful" type slavery. I say the harmful type because as I have shown before, many slaves at that time in history were actually better off than the free poor. Some even sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts.
So you think there are acceptable forms of slavery?
Just amazing that you can't see how terrible you sound.

Luke 4:18

The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

So jesus claimed he wanted the release of prisoners. So what?

It's interesting that he wanted liberty for the bruised when he advocating the bruising of those without liberty.

So DOC, which is it? Was Jesus for or against slavery? Which part of the bible is wrong?

ETA:
You do not get to have it both ways. Either Jesus was for slavery or he wasn't. IF the text you quote (just now) really does reflects freeing slaves, then the parable must be wrong.
If the parable is right, this text must be wrong.

If "both are right" then the bible is nothing more than a choose your own adventure book of morality.

kurious_kathy

15th September 2009, 03:22 PM

Oh, I'm sorry DOC. I didn't realize there was a context in which it was ok for a perfect god to condone beating slaves.

Nope. He said it was ok to beat slaves for knowingly or unknowingly going against the master's wishes. Just as long as the beating the unkowning slaves receive is less severe than the knowing slaves.

Slavery is morally wrong and beating people who disobey is barbaric.
There is no "Fair" punishment, except to punish those who would own another human being.

What do YOU think is fair? Do you think it fair that Jesus (who you claim to be god) supported slavery? I sure as hell don't.

Oh Pleeeeease joobz, you can't really believe God said slavery was okay? But what I see that maybe you don't is that God doesn't interfere with our free will. People are sinners and unless they repent of wanting to sin they do all kinds of evil things. Having and keeping slaves was not Gods plan, men with wickedness in their hearts caused that. I believe one day all people will give account to God so please don't think God will forget the ones that were mistreated in life, or their abusers. Even if they come to know Christ and receive forgiveness for their sins, one day everyone will give account to God for the things they have done in their flesh.

I also believe God will oneday right every wrong and wipe away every tear for his redeemed. Now wouldn't you like to have this confidence, and see things more clearly? God loves you and hopes you'll receive his free gift of salvation!

P.S. I just watched the Jane Pittman Biography again and it is as much a tear jerker as an inspiration. She and all slaves had a rough life and it certainly was not okay. It was quite clear to me to see how her faith got her through it all.

One can't help but ask why God allowed so much suffering in some peoples lives? All I know is he has promised one day to make it right after he starts this world over. (A.K.A. the last will be first and the first will be last.)

kurious_kathy

15th September 2009, 03:31 PM

So you think there are acceptable forms of slavery?
Just amazing that you can't see how terrible you sound.

So jesus claimed he wanted the release of prisoners. So what?

It's interesting that he wanted liberty for the bruised when he advocating the bruising of those without liberty.

So DOC, which is it? Was Jesus for or against slavery? Which part of the bible is wrong?

ETA:
You do not get to have it both ways. Either Jesus was for slavery or he wasn't. IF the text you quote (just now) really does reflects freeing slaves, then the parable must be wrong.
If the parable is right, this text must be wrong.

If "both are right" then the bible is nothing more than a choose your own adventure book of morality.

All people are slaves to sin unless they are born again! The Bible is TRUE, but without being filled with the Holy Spirit you cannot see these teachings in the right light, or correctly!

RoboTimbo

15th September 2009, 03:33 PM

Marduk

15th September 2009, 03:38 PM

Having and keeping slaves was not Gods plan,
unless you count locking people up in a garden

:p

Marduk

15th September 2009, 03:39 PM

All people are slaves to sin unless they are born again! The Bible is TRUE, but without being filled with the Holy Spirit you cannot see these teachings in the right light, or correctly!

Kathy, the only spirit required to believe that a jewish zombie is offering you salvation is Vodka
:D

joobz

15th September 2009, 06:26 PM

Oh Pleeeeease joobz, you can't really believe God said slavery was okay?
it's in the bible. It's your job to explain why the bible is wrong. Not mine.

But what I see that maybe you don't is that God doesn't interfere with our free will. People are sinners and unless they repent of wanting to sin they do all kinds of evil things. Having and keeping slaves was not Gods plan, men with wickedness in their hearts caused that. I believe one day all people will give account to God so please don't think God will forget the ones that were mistreated in life, or their abusers. Even if they come to know Christ and receive forgiveness for their sins, one day everyone will give account to God for the things they have done in their flesh.
This has nothing at all to do with the fact that the bible condones slavery. IN particular, Jesus condones slavery and the beating of slaves.

I also believe God will oneday right every wrong and wipe away every tear for his redeemed. Now wouldn't you like to have this confidence, and see things more clearly? God loves you and hopes you'll receive his free gift of salvation!no. I've seen you celebrate the fires in CA as a punishment against the wicked. I certainly do not want to see the world the way you do. It's too fearful and delusionary.

P.S. I just watched the Jane Pittman Biography again and it is as much a tear jerker as an inspiration. She and all slaves had a rough life and it certainly was not okay. It was quite clear to me to see how her faith got her through it all. makes you wonder why jesus never preached against slavery, doesn't it?

One can't help but ask why God allowed so much suffering in some peoples lives? All I know is he has promised one day to make it right after he starts this world over. (A.K.A. the last will be first and the first will be last.)
That's funny. I remember as a kid promising my dad I'd take out the trash.
My dad wasn't too happy with my success rate, and it still surpassed that of god's.

joobz

15th September 2009, 06:27 PM

The Bible is TRUE,
So then Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves. Are you ok with this?

amb

16th September 2009, 03:41 AM

All people are slaves to sin unless they are born again! The Bible is TRUE, but without being filled with the Holy Spirit you cannot see these teachings in the right light, or correctly!

This holy spirit, is it Scotch Whisky, Brandy, Rum or Vodka? :p
When full of these subsubstances you can see many various things, like holy ghosts, Jeebus himself even. I once saw a pink elephant. :p

DOC

16th September 2009, 06:01 AM

So DOC, which is it? Was Jesus for or against slavery? Which part of the bible is wrong?Nowhere does the bible say Jesus was for slavery. But he did say he came to preach deliverance to the captives.

paximperium

16th September 2009, 06:14 AM

But he did say he came to preach deliverance to the captives.
What does that have to do with slaves?

Marduk

16th September 2009, 06:24 AM

Nowhere does the bible say Jesus was for slavery. But he did say he came to preach deliverance to the captives.
hows those rose coloured specs youre wearing ?
these are the words of Jesus according to Luke
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes

this is from Luke, you remember him dontcha, you mentioned this before
"I regard Luke as the greatest historian who has ever lived"

:rolleyes:

youre in that river in Africa DOC

DOC

16th September 2009, 06:26 AM

So then Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves. Are you ok with this?Why do you keep talking about slaves -- the verse says servants, nowhere in the over 100 times the Greek word doulos is used in the bible is it translated as slave. The title of this thread should be The Bible and Servants.

And if you read Matthew Chapter 24 it also deals with this parable but the parable is in the context of the end of the world. That is the main focus of the whole parable -- punishment at the end of the world will come to those who have disobeyed God's rules. The temporal institution of servitude is not the focus. But obviously this parable would have been understood by the people in that brutal culture.

Ladewig

16th September 2009, 07:03 AM

That is the main focus of the whole parable -- punishment at the end of the world will come to those who have disobeyed God's rules.

I thought that main focus was the punishment at the end of the world will come to those who did not know what God's rules were. God is a bit of a prig in the story.

Anyway, even if that is the "main focus," one is still left wondering way God chose this particular story to illustrate this message. It does, in fact, appear that He is approving of slavery.

DOC

16th September 2009, 07:34 AM

Anyway, even if that is the "main focus," one is still left wondering way God chose this particular story to illustrate this message. It does, in fact, appear that He is approving of slavery.

How could that be when the verse talks of servants. As I said earlier, the Greek word doulos was never translated as slave or slaves anywhere in the bible. And it was used over 100 times in the bible.

DOC

16th September 2009, 07:44 AM

But he did say he came to preach deliverance to the captives.

What does that have to do with slaves?

A lot if you look at the definition of captive from Answers.com

n.

1. One, such as a prisoner of war, who is forcibly confined, subjugated, or enslaved.
2. One held in the grip of a strong emotion or passion.

adj.

1. Taken and held prisoner, as in war.
2. Held in bondage; enslaved.
3. Kept under restraint or control; confined: captive birds.
4. Restrained by circumstances that prevent free choice: a captive audience; a captive market.
5. Enraptured, as by beauty; captivated.

http://www.answers.com/captive

DOC

16th September 2009, 08:05 AM

this is from Luke, you remember him dontcha, you mentioned this before.

Yes, I remember, he was referring to the likely punishment (in that brutal culture) that would be given by a lord of an estate when a servant beat several men and several women when that servant knew it was wrong. The people in that culture probably understood exactly what Christ was talking about regarding punishment and thus he got his point across very well which I assume was his purpose.

joobz

16th September 2009, 09:13 AM

Nowhere does the bible say Jesus was for slavery. But he did say he came to preach deliverance to the captives.
You'd think, if he was against slavery, he'd have said so and that he wouldn't have condoned beating slaves.

joobz

16th September 2009, 09:23 AM

Why do you keep talking about slaves -- the verse says servants, nowhere in the over 100 times the Greek word doulos is used in the bible is it translated as slave. The title of this thread should be The Bible and Servants.
Because the original greek said slave
I just did a quick check to the Codex Sinaiticus
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=35&chapter=12&lid=en&side=r&verse=48&zoomSlider=0 (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=35&chapter=12&lid=en&side=r&verse=48&zoomSlider=0)

The word that is used in the greek is Doulos, whose primary translation is slave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doulos

Doulos may refer to:

In ancient Greece, a slave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity) (δοῦλος)
Biblically it is commonly translated as bond-servant or servant, but literally the word meant slave.
And check out this site, which explains that the idea of us all being servants of god, the term used was also doulos. As clearly stated, this site thinks that the slave term is completely proper and shows the level of devotion own must have towards god.

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1518/Doulos.htm
The majority of us have been born into cultures where literal, physical slavery is no longer practiced. We have no direct experience with it, though most of us have at least an intellectual understanding of some aspects of it. Consider, then, the relationship between master and slave. The apostles had a good reason to use the word that means "slave" (doulos). They wanted us to understand that in our relationship with God we not only experience the joys of freedom as His children but also the serious requirement to obey as His slaves

Sorry DOC, Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves.

And if you read Matthew Chapter 24 it also deals with this parable but the parable is in the context of the end of the world. That is the main focus of the whole parable -- punishment at the end of the world will come to those who have disobeyed God's rules. The temporal institution of servitude is not the focus. But obviously this parable would have been understood by the people in that brutal culture.
Yes, exactly. Jesus used slavery as an example because he found it an appropriate analogy to our relationship with god. In other words, JESUS CONDONES SLAVERY AND VIEWS US AS SLAVES. HE ALSO CONDONES THE BEATING OF SLAVES AS APPROPRIATE.

joobz

16th September 2009, 09:27 AM

Yes, I remember, he was referring to the likely punishment (in that brutal culture)
And he approved of the behavior. You just called Jesus Brutal. Good job.

joobz

16th September 2009, 09:36 AM

As I said earlier, the Greek word doulos was never translated as slave or slaves anywhere in the bible. And it was used over 100 times in the bible.That was because it was a political choice.

http://newleaven.com/2008/04/04/why-doulos-wasnt-given-a-fair-treatment/
For cultural reasons most translations have opted for either “servant” or “bondservant” for the Greek doulos. When one chairman of a major translation was asked about the choice of “servant” instead of “slave” for doulos, he said that it was shameful and difficult became of dark history of slavery in America.

http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2007/12/slaves-or-servants-pt-1.html
With in recent months, this Achilles Heel in the KJV-only apologetic has become vividly clear to me when I have been considering the translation of the NT Greek word doulos. The primary definition of doulos is "slave." The word is used over 100 times in the NT and carries the idea of slavery in the sense of a person being owned by a master. Ever since Christians have been translating the scripture into English the word "servant" or "bond-servant" has been used to translate doulos, and the KJV is no exception. In fact, the only time the KJV uses the word "slave" is in Jeremiah 2:14 and Revelation 18:13 and neither one of those passages is even translating the word doulos.

The case is quite clear, DOC. Doulos is slave, not servant.

DOC

16th September 2009, 09:59 AM

Because the original greek said slave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doulos

[/LIST]And check out this site, which explains that the idea of us all being servants of god, the term used was also doulos. As clearly stated, this site thinks that the slave term is completely proper and shows the level of devotion own must have towards god.

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1518/Doulos.htm

Sorry DOC, Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves.

Yes, exactly. Jesus used slavery as an example because he found it an appropriate analogy to our relationship with god. In other words, JESUS CONDONES SLAVERY AND VIEWS US AS SLAVES. HE ALSO CONDONES THE BEATING OF SLAVES AS APPROPRIATE.

Joobz you're in denial, nowhere in over 100 uses of doulos in the bible is it translated as slave. The King James Version had 47 scholars working on it, don't you think one of them would have translated the word as slave if they thought that's what it meant.

But even if it was translated as slave, that would not mean Jesus supported the institution of slavery -- harsh punishment for beating several men and woman, yes, but not the institution of slavery (that is of course unless the person was better off as a slave as was often the case in that era).

And Paul said slaves are equal to free people in the eyes of God which was a type of thinking that was way ahead of its time.

DOC

16th September 2009, 10:10 AM

And he approved of the behavior. You just called Jesus Brutal. Good job.Well actually I called the culture of that era. brutal. But yes, Jesus does imply in the parable that their will be harsh punishment for serious sins such as beating several men and women when you knew it was wrong.

joobz

16th September 2009, 10:20 AM

Well actually I called the culture of that era. brutal.
Isn't it strage that jesus didn't complain about the brutal nature of beating slaves, and actively used is to describe proper behavior?
For a God who supposedly is all knowing and loving, he certainly doesn't behave that way.
But yes, Jesus does imply in the parable that their will be harsh punishment for serious sins such as beating several men and women when you knew it was wrong.
and even if you didn't know it was wrong, you'll still get beat.
Luke 12:48 (NIV)
"But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows."

Really nice, eh?

Undesired Walrus

16th September 2009, 10:26 AM

Well actually I called the culture of that era. brutal. But yes, Jesus does imply in the parable that their will be harsh punishment for serious sins such as beating several men and women when you knew it was wrong.

And do you believe a lashing is moral?

joobz

16th September 2009, 10:29 AM

Joobz you're in denial,
nope.
facts are facts.

Here's another site taht provide ancient greek to modern english translation.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dd ou%3Dlos1

The primary translation for dolous is:
born bondman or slave, opp. one made a slave

So, you are demonstrably and flat out wrong.

nowhere in over 100 uses of doulos in the bible is it translated as slave. The King James Version had 47 scholars working on it, don't you think one of them would have translated the word as slave if they thought that's what it meant.
Not if they were uncomfortable with the ramifications of what it would mean.

It's actually a subject for some very interesting discussion. WHy did the KJV so blatantly soften the meaning of the text?

If I was to make a guess, it would have a lot more to do with the implications of everyone (including King) being "slaves of god" and not "servants of god". But, that's me purely spitballing.

But even if it was translated as slave, that would not mean Jesus supported the institution of slavery -- harsh punishment for beating several men and woman, yes, but not the institution of slavery (that is of course unless the person was better off as a slave as was often the case in that era).
If he used slavery to describe our relationship with god, then he condones slavery.

And Paul said slaves are equal to free people in the eyes of God which was a type of thinking that was way ahead of its time.
Paul still condoned slavery. Jesus condoned slavery. The bible condones slavery. Jesus even condoned the beating of slaves.

Even you condoned slavery and the beating of slaves.

The bible is amoral and leads to amoral thinking. You've demonstrated this yourself.

DOC

16th September 2009, 05:11 PM

nope.
facts are facts.

Here's another site taht provide ancient greek to modern english translation.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dd ou%3Dlos1

The primary translation for dolous is:

So, you are demonstrably and flat out wrong...

Well, if I'm flat our wrong then every other translation of the bible is flat out wrong. Even the Revised Standard version of the bible (favored by some skeptics) which has received criticism by denominations for its various translations of certain verses, translates Luke 12:47 as servant.

Joobz unless you can show that the majority of translations show the verse is translated as slave instead of servant (which you won't be able to do) your argument is just wishful thinking not based on the facts.

And, as I said, even if all the translations did translate it as slave it doesn't mean ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and ( "I have come to heal the brokenhearted and preach deliverance to the captives")Jesus supports the institution of slavery.

DOC

16th September 2009, 05:38 PM

And do you believe a lashing is moral?

Being a Christian, it doesn't matter what I think regarding morality, only what God thinks. If the God of the bible says there will be a harsh punishment for sins like the servant who beat several men and woman then I believe it.

Ladewig

16th September 2009, 06:44 PM

Deleted by poster

joobz

16th September 2009, 06:44 PM

Ladewig

16th September 2009, 06:47 PM

Being a Christian, it doesn't matter what I think regarding morality, only what God thinks. If the God of the bible says there will be a harsh punishment for sins like the servant who beat several men and woman then I believe it.

So do you approve of lashing for "servants" who do NOT beat other servants? The last two servants received lashings. Is it moral to beat one's employees when they have not beaten anyone else?

joobz

16th September 2009, 06:50 PM

Being a Christian, it doesn't matter what I think regarding morality, only what God thinks. If the God of the bible says there will be a harsh punishment for sins like the servant who beat several men and woman then I believe it.
And that is the same reson why the spanish inquisition was conducted.
That's the same argument made for the crusades.
That's the same argument made by suicide Bombers.

You complain that atheism has no moral authority. You've just proven why I'm glad that atheism doesn't have a moral authority.

Cleon

16th September 2009, 07:43 PM

amb

17th September 2009, 03:01 AM

Being a Christian, it doesn't matter what I think regarding morality, only what God thinks. If the God of the bible says there will be a harsh punishment for sins like the servant who beat several men and woman then I believe it.

Is there anything in the bible at all you don't believe? I presume you think Noah and the Fludd is history? That a man actually rose from the dead and most scholars of the time never heard of it? :)

zooterkin

17th September 2009, 03:11 AM

You keep repeating this fallacious logic, DOC.

Something is not true just because a lot of other people say it is. Reality is not a popularity contest.

Corollary:
Something is not true just because DOC makes lots of posts about it.

zooterkin

17th September 2009, 03:16 AM

Well, if I'm flat our wrong then every other translation of the bible is flat out wrong.

Fair enough.

AdinDraco

17th September 2009, 11:40 PM

Slave/Servant...argue the correct term all you want. It. Does. Not. Matter. You still have "servants" that can be inherited, that are property. I still will NOT sell my daughter as a "servant". It's been pointed out to me that even if they are "servants" doesn't mean that they aren't slaves as well.

(btw if you want to argue that it does matter and that slave was the original word and meaning....then yeah, I agree with you. Just sayin' that changing to servant doesn't help their case any.)

Ichneumonwasp

18th September 2009, 05:44 AM

Well, if I'm flat our wrong then every other translation of the bible is flat out wrong. Even the Revised Standard version of the bible (favored by some skeptics) which has received criticism by denominations for its various translations of certain verses, translates Luke 12:47 as servant.

Joobz unless you can show that the majority of translations show the verse is translated as slave instead of servant (which you won't be able to do) your argument is just wishful thinking not based on the facts.

And, as I said, even if all the translations did translate it as slave it doesn't mean ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and ( "I have come to heal the brokenhearted and preach deliverance to the captives")Jesus supports the institution of slavery.

Since servant in ancient Greece and Rome meant slave, what is your point? We aren't talking about the cleaning lady who lives at the end of the street and drops in to cook dinner for the weekend. Doulos is properly translated as slave. That is how it is used in extra-biblical sources; it is even how it is used in the New Testament, though there it often is used in a metaphorical sense.

Discussion of Slavery in the Ancient World (http://books.google.com/books?id=GdzsvqmnGNkC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=doulos+in+greek+literature&source=bl&ots=0MgTq6UP7c&sig=7N_NcdccHp3oIg2jsIvPelwu4lo&hl=en&ei=Cn6zStPGL4m1lAfyw5SSDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

You demonstrated your reckless lack of knowledge of early Christianity and Roman/Greek history in your other thread; why are you repeating the same behavior here?

I will ask the same question here as I did in the other thread: are you so ignorant that you are not qualified to discuss these matters, an idiot who cannot learn even when people try to show you the truth, a liar, or so blinded by ideology that you cannot see the truth in front of you?

Or will you retract your specious argument?

joobz

18th September 2009, 06:26 AM

The amusing part of all of this is that even if we were to accept servant to mean servant for hire and not a person owned by another, we still have Jesus condoning the beating of that servant.

So Does Jesus merely condoning beating employees or does he condone beating slaves?

kurious_kathy

19th September 2009, 10:04 AM

This holy spirit, is it Scotch Whisky, Brandy, Rum or Vodka? :p
When full of these subsubstances you can see many various things, like holy ghosts, Jeebus himself even. I once saw a pink elephant. :p

No, liquor just makes people stupid. been there, done that, Jesus delivered me. All I can say is, "there ain't no high like the most high!" And yes I'm using slang.

RoboTimbo

19th September 2009, 10:06 AM

No, liquor just makes people stupid. been there, done that, Jesus delivered me. All I can say is, "there ain't no high like the most high!" And yes I'm using slang.

Did you have anything to add to the OP about Jesus condoning slavery? Do you believe slavery to be morally reprehensible or do you side with the bible?

joobz

19th September 2009, 12:47 PM

No, liquor just makes people stupid. been there, done that, Jesus delivered me. All I can say is, "there ain't no high like the most high!" And yes I'm using slang.
Do you have a response for Robotimbo's questions or have you given up all pretenses at holding conversations?

paximperium

19th September 2009, 12:48 PM

KK is drunk on Jesus and accidentally stumbled into the wrong thread and regurgitated all over the place.

amb

20th September 2009, 01:22 AM

No, liquor just makes people stupid. been there, done that, Jesus delivered me. All I can say is, "there ain't no high like the most high!" And yes I'm using slang.

Jesus delivered you? Very interesting. I was delivered by a doctor and midwife myself back in the old country. And I'm sure they took one look at me and headed straight to the liquor cabinet. :p

pakeha

20th September 2009, 02:09 AM

More on the bible and slavery here:

Christians' belief about slavery have reversed during the past two millennia. Slavery was condoned, regulated and approved by the writers of the Bible. The Pentateuch contains rules from God concerning the regulation of slavery, including under what conditions a slave owner could be prosecuted if he beat his slave to death. In his book Philemon, Paul wrote to a slave owner about one of his slaves. Paul had every opportunity to condemn slavery as immoral, and to ask the slave owner to free his slave. But he apparently believed that slavery was an acceptable institution. With the exception of Christian Reconstructionists, slavery has been rejected by essentially all Christians today.

This is from :
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none1.htm

Here's more yet:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/slavery.htm

pakeha

20th September 2009, 02:24 AM

Jefferson and slavery:
Thomas Jefferson, principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence, was a tireless promoter of civil liberties. However, he did not conceive of the universal nature of human rights. He owned slaves himself, and even fathered mixed-race children by one of his slaves. Some of his thoughts on slavery were recorded in his "Notes on the State of Virginia." 7 He was opposed to general emancipation, arguing that "Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained..." would hopelessly destabilize society. Jefferson was one of the promoters of the American Colonization Society, which was organized in 1816. It sought to free young African-Americans by educating them and transporting them to a colony outside the United States. Jefferson never freed his own slaves.

The Anglican Church in Virginia debated during the period 1680-1730 about whether slaves should receive Christian religious instruction. They decided that such instruction should be given. However, education programs were thwarted by the landowners and slave owners who felt that if the slaves converted to Christianity, then they could no longer be enslaved

from:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_hist.htm

And here's Jefferson hmself on the subject of blacks:
In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.

From:
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/slavery.htm

pakeha

20th September 2009, 07:40 AM

No, liquor just makes people stupid. been there, done that, Jesus delivered me. All I can say is, "there ain't no high like the most high!" And yes I'm using slang.

Ah, kurious_kathy.
What do you think about slavery?

eccles

20th September 2009, 11:00 PM

How much more bleeding stupid can this gethttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944aaf1bb0472aa.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17565)

Go play with your Jesus doll KK.:mad:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84c296124e7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17233)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

amb

21st September 2009, 02:17 AM

Frustrating arguing with a deluded person isn't it? KK all we ask for is some compeling evidence that we can get our teeth into, but not from the babble, please.:p

pakeha

21st September 2009, 03:29 AM

amb, careful what you ask for-
have you forgotten that amazing slideshow kurious_kathy claimed was proof of YEC?
Or the 'Beowulf proves the bible' source?

DOC

21st September 2009, 09:07 AM

Yes. They are wrong. Please read the links I've posted. There is currently debate about WHY people choose the wrong word "servant" rather than the more appropriate "slave".

So the record shows for you to be able to argue that Jesus condones slavery, all the translations of the bible regarding Luke 12 have to be wrong.

you are simply playing a dumb game now.
I went to the original text and then went a resource discussing ancient greek. That resource shows dolous to mean slave..

That's not what you originally said, you said slave was the "primary" definition of the word.

Using your logic when an interpreter translates a word and the word has several definitions, they are to always use the 1st definition of the word in their translations. God, I hope when the Russians and the US get together to talk about nuclear weapons their interpreters don't believe what you believe.

DOC

21st September 2009, 09:40 AM

Joobz unless you can show that the majority of translations show the verse is translated as slave instead of servant (which you won't be able to do) your argument is just wishful thinking not based on the facts.

You keep repeating this fallacious logic, DOC.

Something is not true just because a lot of other people say it is. Reality is not a popularity contest.

Yes, I know, but when there is doubt about an issue, it can logically be claimed that the side that has the majority of proponents is the side "most likely" to be right. The majority might indeed be wrong but it is not illogical to make a claim that the majority is the side most likely to be right.

Marduk

21st September 2009, 09:43 AM

God, I hope when the Russians and the US get together to talk about nuclear weapons their interpreters don't believe what you believe.

theres this thing "current affairs", several years ago it included words like Glasnost and Perestroika

did you miss that ?
:p

Marduk

21st September 2009, 09:46 AM

it can logically be claimed that the side that has the majority of proponents is the side "most likely" to be right. The majority might indeed be wrong but it is not illogical to claim the majority is the side most likely to be right.

aha I see the major flaw in your reasoning. So according to your logic if we ask most five year olds where santa lives the majority who would say "at the north pole" would be correct

usually the side that has the most supportable empirical evidence is correct, this has never proven to be anyone making claims based on biblical veracity
:rolleyes:

DOC

21st September 2009, 09:50 AM

aha I see the major flaw in your reasoning. So according to your logic if we ask most five year olds where santa lives the majority who would say "at the north pole" would be correct

We're not talking 5 year olds, we're talking about scholars and their interpretations of the bible.

ETA:

And you will notice, I said the majority might indeed be wrong... There can be exceptions of course like you're unusual 5 yr. old scenario.

tsig

21st September 2009, 10:49 AM

Marduk

21st September 2009, 11:29 AM

We're not talking 5 year olds, we're talking about scholars and their interpretations of the bible.

ETA:

And you will notice, I said the majority might indeed be wrong... There can be exceptions of course like you're unusual 5 yr. old scenario.

you are still talking nonsense, the logical view is always whoever has the strongest empirical evidence, not who thinks they have the strongest evidence because they need it to be so because of a personal weakness and fear

if things worked your way DOC we'd still be in the dark ages

so who do we believe, the biblical scholars of faith who need to believe, that what they are writing means that when they die they wont be dead or the secular biblical scholars who just look at the evidence presented. Perhaps you've heard of Enlil, perhaps not, but its certainly in your best interests to research him, you might go read Atrahasis as well why you are at it, but if youre scared of what you may find thats cool too, faith abhores evidence doesnt it
;)

Cleon

21st September 2009, 12:31 PM

paximperium

21st September 2009, 12:40 PM

And you will notice, I said the majority might indeed be wrong... There can be exceptions of course like you're unusual 5 yr. old scenario.
Or yours for example.

DOC

21st September 2009, 04:26 PM

Wrong. It most certainly is illogical. In fact, that particular logical fallacy has an actual name: Argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).

My statement is not "Argumentum_ad_populum" because I said it can be argued that the issue is "most likely true" not that "is true". If 5 specialists say you don't need an operation and 3 say you do, it is not illogical to conclude that is "most likely" you don't need the operation.

paximperium

21st September 2009, 04:29 PM

My statement is not "Argumentum_ad_populum" because I said it can be argued that the issue is "most likely true" not that "is true". If 5 specialists say you don't need an operation and 3 say you do, it is not illogical to conclude that is "most likely" you don't need the operation.
Actually THAT IS Argumentum ad populum. It does not matter about the number of opinions, what matters is the empirical evidence.

DOC once again proves he does not understand logic. Sad.

DOC

21st September 2009, 04:44 PM

you are still talking nonsense, the logical view is always whoever has the strongest empirical evidence,...

What if Christian apologists like Norman Geisler or Ralph Muncaster, who have examined all the scientific theories out there, come to the conclusion based on those scientific theories, logic, and what the bible says, that Christ is indeed who he said he was- God.

...so who do we believe, the biblical scholars of faith who need to believe, that what they are writing means that when they die they wont be dead or the secular biblical scholars who just look at the evidence presented.

As I mentioned above, many apologists have looked at the evidence presented and that includes scientific evidence. I would recommend you read these threads if you think you understand scientific evidence:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120745

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95977

Now back to slavery

Cleon

21st September 2009, 04:51 PM

My statement is not "Argumentum_ad_populum" because I said it can be argued that the issue is "most likely true" not that "is true".

And yet, oddly, that doesn't change the situation much. You most certainly are engaging in argumentum ad populum, and desperately grasping for an excuse allowing you to do so.

If 5 specialists say you don't need an operation and 3 say you do, it is not illogical to conclude that is "most likely" you don't need the operation.

You're really not clear on this whole "logic" thing, are you?

Cleon

21st September 2009, 04:54 PM

What if Christian apologists like Norman Geisler or Ralph Muncaster, who have examined all the scientific theories out there, come to the conclusion based on those scientific theories, logic, and what the bible says, that Christ is indeed who he said he was- God.

Then they're wrong.

As I mentioned above, many apologists have looked at the evidence presented and that includes scientific evidence.

And many scientists have looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion.

Amazing, the faulty "logic" that is argumentum ad populum.

I would recommend you read these threads if you think you understand scientific evidence:
:dl:

Hokulele

21st September 2009, 04:58 PM

paximperium

21st September 2009, 04:59 PM

What if Christian apologists like Norman Geisler or Ralph Muncaster, who have examined all the scientific theories out there, come to the conclusion based on those scientific theories, logic, and what the bible says, that Christ is indeed who he said he was- God. That would another logical fallacy; Argument from Authority but in this situation, Argument from Laughable Ignorant Dishonest None-Authority.

As I mentioned above, many apologists have looked at the evidence presented and that includes scientific evidence.
Except for their inability to ever use it, lack of understanding or it and dishonest lies about it; yeah sure.

I would recommend you read these threads if you think you understand scientific evidence:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95977
I love that thread. You get your hand handed to you by actual facts and you still claim some sort of victory.

Cleon

21st September 2009, 05:01 PM

The mind boggles. DOC's conviction as to the soundness of his arguments is 100% inversely proportional to their actual merit.

It's like he's using anti-logic.

paximperium

21st September 2009, 05:02 PM

The mind boggles. DOC's conviction as to the soundness of his arguments is 100% inversely proportional to their actual merit.

It's like he's using anti-logic.
Anti-logic cancels out logic leading to an explosion of magical thinking and rainbows.

Cleon

21st September 2009, 05:05 PM

Anti-logic cancels out logic leading to an explosion of magical thinking and rainbows.

Or JREF threads...

Elizabeth I

21st September 2009, 07:29 PM

Yes, I know, but when there is doubt about an issue, it can logically be claimed that the side that has the majority of proponents is the side "most likely" to be right. The majority might indeed be wrong but it is not illogical to make a claim that the majority is the side most likely to be right.

Oooh, I love this one.

So slavery was right? A majority of people once believed it was.

So the geocentric theory of the construction of the universe was right? A majority of people once believed in it.

So meat which undergoes no treatment to preserve it will spontaneously generate maggots? Many people once believed that.

So a formula exists which will convert base metals to gold? A great number of alchemists believed that.

So "news" is the latest update on the embarrassing behavior of Britney, Tom Cruise, Lindsey Lohan, et al.? It certainly seems as if a majority of the media and a great number of their readers/viewers/listeners would agree to that proposition.

I believe that in the past you have even tried to use the "slavery" example as an argument against something else. Corkscrews have nothing on you.

joobz

21st September 2009, 08:13 PM

So the record shows for you to be able to argue that Jesus condones slavery, all the translations of the bible regarding Luke 12 have to be wrong.
No, not all the translations. Just the ones that claim it means purely "servant".

That's not what you originally said, you said slave was the "primary" definition of the word.
And the source I linked you to had the PRIMARY DEFINITION as slave. the secondary definition is a born bondsman and bondservant.
Neither of those help you.

Marduk

21st September 2009, 08:20 PM

What if Christian apologists like Norman Geisler or Ralph Muncaster, who have examined all the scientific theories out there, come to the conclusion based on those scientific theories, logic, and what the bible says, that Christ is indeed who he said he was- God.

"christian apologist" and "scientific theory" are mutually exclusive, doesn't the fact that the Bible needs apologists to explain all its errors say anything to you ?

As I mentioned above, many apologists have looked at the evidence presented and that includes scientific evidence. I would recommend you read these threads if you think you understand scientific evidence:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120745
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95977

Now back to slavery
you got your ass handed to you in those threads, what was your point, do you even remember ?
:D

joobz

21st September 2009, 08:25 PM

What if Christian apologists like Norman Geisler or Ralph Muncaster, who have examined all the scientific theories out there, come to the conclusion based on those scientific theories, logic, and what the bible says, that Christ is indeed who he said he was- God.

Instead of actually refuting my claim, you decide to invoke Geisler like he's some logic shield. Sorry, that doesn't work.

As it stands:
1.) Jesus condones slavery and the beating of slaves.
2.) He views this behavior as an acceptable analogy for our relationship to him.

Don't you think that's a bit sick? Oh wait, you have also
1.) Demonstrated your willingness to sacrifice liberty for comfort.
2.) Justified the enslavement of others.

DOC

23rd September 2009, 01:03 AM

Oooh, I love this one.

So slavery was right? A majority of people once believed it was.

So the geocentric theory of the construction of the universe was right? A majority of people once believed in it.

So meat which undergoes no treatment to preserve it will spontaneously generate maggots? Many people once believed that.

So a formula exists which will convert base metals to gold? A great number of alchemists believed that.

So "news" is the latest update on the embarrassing behavior of Britney, Tom Cruise, Lindsey Lohan, et al.? It certainly seems as if a majority of the media and a great number of their readers/viewers/listeners would agree to that proposition.

I believe that in the past you have even tried to use the "slavery" example as an argument against something else. Corkscrews have nothing on you.

Of course there are always exceptions, but in general I stand by my statement.

And you seem to imply that slavery is wrong. If you are an atheist and there is no God, this is just an opinion you have and your opinion is no different then people who think slavery is OK, because you have no absolutes to base it on. I have an absolute to base my belief that slavery is wrong on. Jesus(God) said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". And thus if someone believes my belief is wrong then they are going against God and their belief is indeed wrong.

DOC

23rd September 2009, 01:10 AM

So the record shows for you to be able to argue that Jesus condones slavery, all the translations of the bible regarding Luke 12 have to be wrong.

No, not all the translations. Just the ones that claim it means purely "servant".

Name just "one" of the many biblical translations that are on such sites as Blue Letter Bible, or Gateway, that translate Luke 12:47 using the word slave instead of servant -- just one.

DOC

23rd September 2009, 01:18 AM

What if Christian apologists like Norman Geisler or Ralph Muncaster, who have examined all the scientific theories out there, come to the conclusion based on those scientific theories, logic, and what the bible says, that Christ is indeed who he said he was- God.

As I mentioned above, many apologists have looked at the evidence presented and that includes scientific evidence. I would recommend you read these threads if you think you understand scientific evidence:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120745

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95977

Now back to slavery

"you got your ass handed to you in those threads, what was your point, do you even remember?

You have got the right to your opinion, but the fact that I used them in my response shows I don't agree with your opinion.

AdinDraco

23rd September 2009, 02:23 AM

And you seem to imply that slavery is wrong. If you are an atheist and there is no God, this is just an opinion you have and your opinion is no different then people who think slavery is OK, because you have no absolutes to base it on. I have an absolute to base my belief that slavery is wrong on. Jesus(God) said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". And thus if someone believes my belief is wrong then they are going against God and their belief is indeed wrong.

No. This argument predisposes your god exists, and exists as you think he does. I see no evidence for your god so arguments from (fictitious) authority do not prove a thing. There is no "absolute" morality, except in the sense that in any given situation there might be a "best" option, depending on what everybody's goals are. You have your morals and you are projecting them onto your holy book. Funny how devout, earnest believers were able to use your "absolute" authority to defend/promote slavery, polyogamy, sexism, racism, murder etc etc. And now, please don't argue what the bible really says or means, this is the use that honest, devout believers put it to. I feel comfortable rejecting your assertion out of hand.

paximperium

23rd September 2009, 02:40 AM

And you seem to imply that slavery is wrong. If you are an atheist and there is no God, this is just an opinion you have and your opinion is no different then people who think slavery is OK, because you have no absolutes to base it on. I have an absolute to base my belief that slavery is wrong on. Jesus(God) said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". And thus if someone believes my belief is wrong then they are going against God and their belief is indeed wrong.
Not only is your morality pathetic, it is laughably so.

My morality is based on my own and society's "opinion". It is most definately superior. I can most definately say that my morality is superior to those who suported slavery like Jesus and those who still apologizes for slavery and beating of slaves(like you).

I sure can conclude that my morality is superior than anything in your pathetic book of fantasies or your paper thin morality which is based on nothing more than false authority and the words of a pseudo-fictional slave supporter. I have no problem calling your morality pathetic and evil.

amb

23rd September 2009, 05:00 AM

The pilgrims of the first settlers in America used the bible as condoning slavery thereby justifying the importation of thousands of black Africans.
The White minority government of South Africa also used the bible to justify the apartheid system. What more proof do you need DOC?

Cleon

23rd September 2009, 06:16 AM

Of course there are always exceptions, but in general I stand by my statement.

And yet, most people here think you're wrong. So by your own logic, you're most likely wrong.

And you seem to imply that slavery is wrong. If you are an atheist and there is no God, this is just an opinion you have and your opinion is no different then people who think slavery is OK, because you have no absolutes to base it on. I have an absolute to base my belief that slavery is wrong on. Jesus(God) said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". And thus if someone believes my belief is wrong then they are going against God and their belief is indeed wrong.

Wrong.

joobz

23rd September 2009, 09:22 AM

joobz

23rd September 2009, 09:24 AM

Of course there are always exceptions, but in general I stand by my statement.
SO you defend your claim that slavery is morally acceptable in some cases.

Interesting. I find that horrible and I base that upon my rational mind and empathy.

DOC

23rd September 2009, 02:35 PM

Name just "one" of the many biblical translations that are on such sites as Blue Letter Bible, or Gateway, that translate Luke 12:47 using the word slave instead of servant -- just one.

Ok.

The codex sinaiticus says Doulos, and we know that Doulos means slave.

The Codex Sinaiticus as it applies to the New Testament is simply a copy of the Greek New Testament. It is not a translation into English of that Greek New Testament. I asked for one biblical translation of the many translations that are on Blue Letter Bible or Gateway websites that translated doulos as slave and you could provide "none".

Yes, one definition of doulos is slave, but it is not the only definition of doulos. It can also mean servant, and you know that. And I asked you to provide one translation of the Bible where doulos is translated as slave and you could not provide one.

Joobz, the honorable thing to do would be to just admit you overlooked this and it was just an honest mistake. Doulos most likely means servant in Luke 12:47. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that because you can't give me one biblical translation where the verse is translated as slave.

paximperium

23rd September 2009, 02:52 PM

35"(AK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25495AK))Be dressed in (AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25495AL))readiness, and keep your lamps lit. 36"Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks.
37"Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find (AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25497AM))on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that (AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25497AN))he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.
38"(AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25498AO))Whether he comes in the [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#fen-NASB-25498c)]second watch, or even in the [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#fen-NASB-25498d)]third, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.
39"(AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25499AP))But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be (AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25499AQ))broken into.
40"(AR (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25500AR))You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect."
41Peter said, "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or (AS (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25501AS))to everyone else as well?"
42And (AT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25502AT))the Lord said, "(AU (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25502AU))Who then is the faithful and sensible (AV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25502AV))steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time?
43"Blessed is that (AW (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25503AW))slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
44"Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
45"But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
46the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (AX (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25507AX))receive many lashes,
48but the one who did not (AY (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25508AY))know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (AZ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012&version=NASB#cen-NASB-25508AZ))From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

DOCJoobz, the honorable thing to do would be to just admit you overlooked this and it was just an honest mistake. Doulos most likely means slaveservant in Luke 12:47.
Check. And. Mate.

pakeha

23rd September 2009, 03:11 PM

47“And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will receive many lashes,
Luke 12:47 (NASB)

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:0NLPHAqc2cQJ:www.just1word.com/verse/luke_12:47+Luke+12:47&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

paximperium

23rd September 2009, 03:13 PM

One more:

Luke 12:41-47 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Rewards and Punishment

41 "Lord," Peter asked, "are You telling this parable to us or to everyone?" 42 The Lord said: "Who then is the faithful and sensible manager (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012:41-47&version=HCSB#cen-HCSB-25670A)) his master will put in charge of his household servants to give them their allotted food (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012:41-47&version=HCSB#cen-HCSB-25670B)) at the proper time? 43 That slave whose master finds him working when he comes will be rewarded. 44 I tell you the truth: he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming, (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012:41-47&version=HCSB#cen-HCSB-25673C)) ' and starts to beat the male and female slaves, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 that slave's master will come on a day he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know. He will cut him to pieces [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012:41-47&version=HCSB#fen-HCSB-25674a)] and assign him a place with the unbelievers. [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012:41-47&version=HCSB#fen-HCSB-25674b)] 47 And that slave who knew his master's will and didn't prepare himself or do it [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012:41-47&version=HCSB#fen-HCSB-25675c)] will be severely beaten. (D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012:41-47&version=HCSB#cen-HCSB-25675D))

Cleon

23rd September 2009, 03:18 PM

I wonder what excuse DOC is going to come up with...

pakeha

23rd September 2009, 03:19 PM

Luke 12:42-48 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
42 The Lord said: "Who then is the faithful and sensible manager (A) his master will put in charge of his household servants to give them their allotted food (B) at the proper time? 43 That slave whose master finds him working when he comes will be rewarded. 44 I tell you the truth: he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming, (C) ' and starts to beat the male and female slaves, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 that slave's master will come on a day he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know. He will cut him to pieces [a] and assign him a place with the unbelievers. [b] 47 And that slave who knew his master's will and didn't prepare himself or do it [c] will be severely beaten. (D) 48 But the one who did not know and did things deserving (E) of blows will be beaten lightly. Much will be required of everyone who has been given much. And even more will be expected of the one who has been entrusted with more. (F) [d]

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:vfymdHDC4JEJ:www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3Fsearch%3DLuke%2B12%253A42-48%26version%3DHCSB+Luke+12:47+slave&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

paximperium

23rd September 2009, 03:38 PM

United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery

Article 1
The parties commit to abolish and abandon debt bondage, serfdom, servile marriage and child servitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_1956_Supplementary_Convention_on_th e_Abolition_of_Slavery
The UN seem to consider serfdom and debt bondsmen/bondage to be the same as slavery...I wonder why?

Ichneumonwasp

23rd September 2009, 05:09 PM

So the record shows for you to be able to argue that Jesus condones slavery, all the translations of the bible regarding Luke 12 have to be wrong.

That's not what you originally said, you said slave was the "primary" definition of the word.

Using your logic when an interpreter translates a word and the word has several definitions, they are to always use the 1st definition of the word in their translations. God, I hope when the Russians and the US get together to talk about nuclear weapons their interpreters don't believe what you believe.

The translations are not wrong. You are wrong because you don't know the definitions of words or much about ancient Rome, Greece, or Palestine/Judea.

The English words for slave and servant are essentially the same thing considering the Greek word polous.

Slaves could perform many different functions in ancient societies. In Rome, for instance, they could serve the role of servant, or they could be gladiators, or they could be mine workers, etc. Servant refers to the role a person plays, not to their status in society. Servants in Rome were slaves. Whatever distinction you are trying to make is a phantasm created in your own mind.

Think about this for just a moment. If you could buy a slave relatively cheaply, why would you want to pay someone else a wage that would quickly amount to a much greater price. That doesn't make any sense.

Translating the word to mean "servant" simply reflects the role the person played. It was understood that they were slaves.

joobz

23rd September 2009, 05:27 PM

The Codex Sinaiticus as it applies to the New Testament is simply a copy of the Greek New Testament.
I linked to it because it was the oldest text we have AND it refers to a slave. That's really all that matters. I did not have time to pull out texts that use slave instead of servant, nor did I need to. I was merely explaining that only the translations which used servant as being merely a servant and not a bondservant(aka slave) were wrong.

It is not a translation into English of that Greek New Testament. I asked for one biblical translation of the many translations that are on Blue Letter Bible or Gateway websites that translated doulos as slave and you could provide "none".
Both Pax and pakeha gave you translations which used slave. And Pax even went one step further to explain that a bondservant is considered a slave.

Yes, one definition of doulos is slave, but it is not the only definition of doulos. It can also mean servant, and you know that. And I asked you to provide one translation of the Bible where doulos is translated as slave and you could not provide one.
Again, you are merely exposing your complete ignorance of that historical period. Ichneumanwasp explained it clearly. Please refer back. Doulos is a slave.

Joobz, the honorable thing to do would be to just admit you overlooked this and it was just an honest mistake. Doulos most likely means servant in Luke 12:47. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that because you can't give me one biblical translation where the verse is translated as slave.
DOC, the honorable thing for you to do is admit you were wrong and also admit that:
1.) Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves.
2.) That this type of behavior is considered immoral in modern western secular society.

Hokulele

23rd September 2009, 06:08 PM

I wonder what excuse DOC is going to come up with...

No True BibleTM.

paximperium

23rd September 2009, 06:28 PM

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/c89b5497e5.jpg
The 10 year old maid came forward in media in her critical condition. She accused Urvashi of abusing and manhandling her when she was caught eating some food stuff from the actress’s refrigerator. Following the incident the girl was held captive for several days at an end without any food. The maid was hit severely on her back as the battered girl showed assault scars, and was also brutally hit in her eye. She even complained that her arm had been heartlessly burnt.http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/urvashi-dhanorkar-small-screen-actress-assaults-domestic-servant_100236466.html

And that SERVANT who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/8634649/1/istockphoto_8634649-cute-jesus-christ-character.jpg

DOC

24th September 2009, 04:04 AM

paximperium

24th September 2009, 04:15 AM

Ok, so you all find 2 translations out of about 12 translations on Blue Letter Bible. The preponderance of the evidence still points to it being translated as servant. It is irresponsible to now go around saying Jesus condones slavery on such scarce evidence. And even if it was translated 12 out of 12 as slave it wouldn't mean Jesus supported the institution of slavery anymore then Jesus saying "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" means he supported the military takeover of Palestine by the Romans. But if people still want to say Jesus supported slavery, go ahead, it's your credibility on the line.
Jesus also said: ""And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."

DOC knows better than Jesus.

A person like Jesus who says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "I have come to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and set at liberty those that are bruised" obviously would not support our modern concept of slavery. If some people want to continue to say he did, like I said, its your credibility. He did support the "old" concept of slavery which is equally barbaric and evil.

And as the apostle Paul said, slaves are equal to others in the eyes of God. Maybe that was why that slave girl mentioned in my Evidence thread in the History Forum was willing to be martyred for Christianity.
And as Ringo said "I became a drummer because it's the only thing I could do. But whenever I hear another drummer, I know I'm no good.....I'm not good on the technical things, but I'm good with all the motions, swinging my head, like."
Maybe DOC just makes things and lies for Jesus up because he can't do anything else? He knows he is no good but he likes to move goalposts around.

DOC

24th September 2009, 04:33 AM

Jesus also said: ""And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."

Not according to these translations on the Blue Letter Bible website. Ten translations say "servant" and one says "bondman"

KJV,

NKJV

NLT

NIV

ESV

RSV

ASV

YLT

WEB

HNV

DBY

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=12&v=47&t=KJV#47

He did support the "old" concept of slavery which is equally barbaric and evil.

Not according to these translations on the Blue Letter Bible website. Ten translations say "servant" and one says "bondman"

KJV,

NKJV

NLT

NIV

ESV

RSV

ASV

YLT

WEB

HNV

DBY

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=12&v=47&t=KJV#47