| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IKnowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2004 11:58:25 AM |
| Object: |
Genesis-Myth or History? |
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is only symbolic?
There are many who say Genesis isn't history while they also claim to be
Christians. However, they need to understand how inconsistent they really
are.
If Christians don't accept Genesis as literal historey, they have actually
destroyed the foundation of the Gospel they claim to believe in.
Ultimately all Christain doctrine is founded in the book of Genesis.
The doctrines of marriage, clothing and sin are totally dependent on the
literial events in Genesis. It also explains the origin of people groups
and, even more importantly, the prediction of the Redeemer found in
Genesis 3.
If Christians don't accept Genesis as literal history, they have no basis
for their faith. When we understand the salvation message about Jesus
Christ coming as a babe in the manger to eventually die on the Cross of
Calvary for our sin, and being raised from the dead so we can spend
eternity with Him-all this is true because of Genesis. And the Lored
Himself comfirmed all of Genesis while He was on earth.
Satan knows that to destroy Genesis is to destroy the foundational book of
the Bible. Today he has indeed destroyed this most important book for
many who have lapped up the evolutionary religion in place of true,
Genesis based Christianity. How will it be for these deluded folks to
stand before the Lord Jesus Christ on that day and declare that they
reserved the right to decide if what He said was true or not and then to
claim that they have a right to be in eternity with Him whom they have
called a liar....
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 10:10:28 PM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0101040958250001@pm1-14.kalama.com...
I kill filed him ......didn't you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 05:52:08 PM |
|
|
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<heavenly-0101040958250001@pm1-14.kalama.com>...
Genesis-Myth or History?
Genesis is myth not history written for simple minded people.
Shan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 12:20:26 PM |
|
|
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is only symbolic?
The very question shows that I-know-***** really knows and understands
NOTHING about christianity. A true fundie (scientific term: homo
idioticus) indeed...
If Christians don't accept Genesis as literal historey, they have actually
destroyed the foundation of the Gospel they claim to believe in.
You worship the written word, fundie boy? You "know" that this written
word is absolute truth? Do you, fundie boy, eh?
Then read Romans 2:17-24 and cower in shame realizing how abominable a
sinner against your own faith you are.
Ultimately all Christain doctrine is founded in the book of Genesis.
There's a mistake in that sentence. Let's correct it, shall we?
"Ultimately all fundie doctrine is founded in the book of Genesis."
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of
gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms, but you
have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have
no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated
Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little
loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth
(4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting
in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet
with the exception of those who share your beliefs --
though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and
physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot
rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and
agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a Christian.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 01:14:39 PM |
|
|
IKnowHimDoYou<heavenly@leavingsoon.com> 01/01/04 12:58PM >>>
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is only symbolic?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper is
only symbolic?
<snip>
Brian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 08:47:11 AM |
|
|
Hogwash.
Judaizers would like nothing better than to snare "Christians" and drag them
back under religious law, law that is condemned by God and Jesus of
Nazareth.
The "creation" of man in the image of God is the same "new creation" Paul
spoke of.
All scripture contains metaphors which the carnally minded believe are to be
understood as being literal interpretations. This, is to be carnally minded
and to be dead in regards to the Holy Spirit of God.
DW Suiter
Son of God
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0101040958250001@pm1-14.kalama.com...
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is only symbolic?
There are many who say Genesis isn't history while they also claim to be
Christians. However, they need to understand how inconsistent they really
are.
If Christians don't accept Genesis as literal historey, they have actually
destroyed the foundation of the Gospel they claim to believe in.
Ultimately all Christain doctrine is founded in the book of Genesis.
The doctrines of marriage, clothing and sin are totally dependent on the
literial events in Genesis. It also explains the origin of people groups
and, even more importantly, the prediction of the Redeemer found in
Genesis 3.
If Christians don't accept Genesis as literal history, they have no basis
for their faith. When we understand the salvation message about Jesus
Christ coming as a babe in the manger to eventually die on the Cross of
Calvary for our sin, and being raised from the dead so we can spend
eternity with Him-all this is true because of Genesis. And the Lored
Himself comfirmed all of Genesis while He was on earth.
Satan knows that to destroy Genesis is to destroy the foundational book of
the Bible. Today he has indeed destroyed this most important book for
many who have lapped up the evolutionary religion in place of true,
Genesis based Christianity. How will it be for these deluded folks to
stand before the Lord Jesus Christ on that day and declare that they
reserved the right to decide if what He said was true or not and then to
claim that they have a right to be in eternity with Him whom they have
called a liar....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bup" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 04:23:12 PM |
|
|
I dont know which group you read *from*. Perhaps you check in all the groups
you post to, perhaps not. Anyway this reply is reluctantly sent to all the
groups you've just spammed.
Please do not cross-post. Post to just *one* group (two at most if *really*
relevant). There are a variety of reasons why you should stick to that. Read
up on newsgroup and usenet ettiquette for more information on better
posting.
Here's a link on posting if that helps. It is to a webpage that offers
advice on posting to technical newsgroups, however, the information is
mostly relevant for non-technical groups as well:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "D. Roland Boehme" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 01:50:53 PM |
|
|
IKnowHimDoYou schrieb:
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is only symbolic?
This question already shows, that you do not know, what you are talking
about.
1.Tim 1,7
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 05:38:35 PM |
|
|
"D. Roland Boehme" <BoehmeDR@gmx.de> wrote in
news:bt1tic$2bma0$1@ID-59782.news.uni-berlin.de:
IKnowHimDoYou schrieb:
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is only
symbolic?
This question already shows, that you do not know, what you are
talking about.
1.Tim 1,7
Amen.
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 06:53:36 PM |
|
|
"D. Roland Boehme" <BoehmeDR@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bt1tic$2bma0$1@ID-59782.news.uni-berlin.de...
IKnowHimDoYou schrieb:
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is only symbolic?
This question already shows, that you do not know, what you are talking
about.
1.Tim 1,7
Interesting verse. I really like what he (Paul) had to say a little further
down.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
transgression.
It's pretty obvious he is referring to real historical events. More
confirmation that anyone who can actually understand simple language will
have no trouble understanding that the Bible treats Genesis as literal
history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 07:02:46 PM |
|
|
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:ki3Jb.55100$6b2.31433@edtnps84:
"D. Roland Boehme" <BoehmeDR@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bt1tic$2bma0$1@ID-59782.news.uni-berlin.de...
IKnowHimDoYou schrieb:
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is only
symbolic?
This question already shows, that you do not know, what you are
talking about.
1.Tim 1,7
Interesting verse. I really like what he (Paul) had to say a
little further down.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in
the transgression.
It's pretty obvious he is referring to real historical events.
No, it's certainly not obvious. He probably was, given his cultural
and religious context, but it's not obvious.
More confirmation that anyone who can actually understand simple
language will have no trouble understanding that the Bible treats
Genesis as literal history.
The Bible also treats illnesses as demonic possession, slavery as
perfectly moral, and women as property.
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 08:37:17 PM |
|
|
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9463CBFD894F8jefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:ki3Jb.55100$6b2.31433@edtnps84:
"D. Roland Boehme" <BoehmeDR@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bt1tic$2bma0$1@ID-59782.news.uni-berlin.de...
IKnowHimDoYou schrieb:
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is only
symbolic?
This question already shows, that you do not know, what you are
talking about.
1.Tim 1,7
Interesting verse. I really like what he (Paul) had to say a
little further down.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in
the transgression.
It's pretty obvious he is referring to real historical events.
No, it's certainly not obvious.
Perhaps to a biblical newbie no. But to anyone who has done the slightest
bit of study on it, it is obvious.
And you only need to look at Paul's other comments that refer to historical
events in Genesis to confirm.
He probably was, given his cultural
and religious context, but it's not obvious.
More confirmation that anyone who can actually understand simple
language will have no trouble understanding that the Bible treats
Genesis as literal history.
The Bible also treats illnesses as demonic possession,
It is an illness. A spiritual illness.
slavery as
perfectly moral,
In the sense that slaves are employees.
and women as property.
The women belongs to the man like the man belongs to the woman. You seem
to be suggesting a problem. Can you provide the exact verse you are
referring to?
World renowned Soviet biochemist and creationist Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov, also
with three earneddoctorates in science, has further commented on the
negative consequences of evolutionary thinking in science and other fields.
He observes that in Russia, scientists usually "become creationists on
scientific grounds" noting that "evolutionists are very subjective in which
data they decide to use as evidence for their theory
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
01 Jan 2004 10:09:24 PM |
|
|
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:xP4Jb.55127$6b2.29886@edtnps84:
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9463CBFD894F8jefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:ki3Jb.55100$6b2.31433@edtnps84:
"D. Roland Boehme" <BoehmeDR@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bt1tic$2bma0$1@ID-59782.news.uni-berlin.de...
IKnowHimDoYou schrieb:
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is
only symbolic?
This question already shows, that you do not know, what you
are talking about.
1.Tim 1,7
Interesting verse. I really like what he (Paul) had to say a
little further down.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
in the transgression.
It's pretty obvious he is referring to real historical events.
No, it's certainly not obvious.
Perhaps to a biblical newbie no.
I suppose my seminary work has been in vain.
But to anyone who has done the
slightest bit of study on it, it is obvious.
And you only need to look at Paul's other comments that refer to
historical events in Genesis to confirm.
As I said, he probably did view it as literal history, given his
religious and cultural background. The text, however, certainly does
not make this obvious, as you asserted.
He probably was, given his cultural
and religious context, but it's not obvious.
More confirmation that anyone who can actually understand
simple language will have no trouble understanding that the
Bible treats Genesis as literal history.
The Bible also treats illnesses as demonic possession,
It is an illness. A spiritual illness.
So demons cause colds?
slavery as
perfectly moral,
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
and women as property.
The women belongs to the man like the man belongs to the woman.
You seem to be suggesting a problem. Can you provide the exact
verse you are referring to?
Anyone who has done any studying, as you adroitly pointed out, is
well aware of the cultural situation with regard to women. Women
were viewed as the property of their husbands.
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 08:32:16 AM |
|
|
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9463EB906DADBjefscrrcom@24.25.9.41...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:xP4Jb.55127$6b2.29886@edtnps84:
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9463CBFD894F8jefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:ki3Jb.55100$6b2.31433@edtnps84:
"D. Roland Boehme" <BoehmeDR@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bt1tic$2bma0$1@ID-59782.news.uni-berlin.de...
IKnowHimDoYou schrieb:
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is
only symbolic?
This question already shows, that you do not know, what you
are talking about.
1.Tim 1,7
Interesting verse. I really like what he (Paul) had to say a
little further down.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
in the transgression.
It's pretty obvious he is referring to real historical events.
No, it's certainly not obvious.
Perhaps to a biblical newbie no.
I suppose my seminary work has been in vain.
Well sorry no slight intended, but you indicated a lack of biblical
knowledge.
But to anyone who has done the
slightest bit of study on it, it is obvious.
And you only need to look at Paul's other comments that refer to
historical events in Genesis to confirm.
As I said, he probably did view it as literal history, given his
religious and cultural background. The text, however, certainly does
not make this obvious, as you asserted.
IMO, it does. And my assertion is based upon an individual having a basic
level of scriptural understanding.
He probably was, given his cultural
and religious context, but it's not obvious.
More confirmation that anyone who can actually understand
simple language will have no trouble understanding that the
Bible treats Genesis as literal history.
The Bible also treats illnesses as demonic possession,
It is an illness. A spiritual illness.
So demons cause colds?
They could. Not in a direct way of inserting a virus into a cell. But they
could affect you in adverse ways that could certainly lead you to a
condition that would make you more susceptible to colds.
slavery as
perfectly moral,
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
They where employees with obviously different working arrangements.
and women as property.
The women belongs to the man like the man belongs to the woman.
You seem to be suggesting a problem. Can you provide the exact
verse you are referring to?
Anyone who has done any studying, as you adroitly pointed out, is
well aware of the cultural situation with regard to women. Women
were viewed as the property of their husbands.
Again, you seem to be attaching a negative connotation to that. Would you
mind posting the verses so we can examine your inference?
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 09:41:55 AM |
|
|
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:QhfJb.56694$6b2.27003@edtnps84:
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9463EB906DADBjefscrrcom@24.25.9.41...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:xP4Jb.55127$6b2.29886@edtnps84:
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9463CBFD894F8jefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:ki3Jb.55100$6b2.31433@edtnps84:
"D. Roland Boehme" <BoehmeDR@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bt1tic$2bma0$1@ID-59782.news.uni-berlin.de...
IKnowHimDoYou schrieb:
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is
only symbolic?
This question already shows, that you do not know, what you
are talking about.
1.Tim 1,7
Interesting verse. I really like what he (Paul) had to say
a little further down.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived
was in the transgression.
It's pretty obvious he is referring to real historical
events.
No, it's certainly not obvious.
Perhaps to a biblical newbie no.
I suppose my seminary work has been in vain.
Well sorry no slight intended, but you indicated a lack of
biblical knowledge.
Hardly. I countered your claim that the text makes it "obvious" that
Paul believed the Genesis accounts were literal history. It does
not.
But to anyone who has done the
slightest bit of study on it, it is obvious.
And you only need to look at Paul's other comments that refer
to historical events in Genesis to confirm.
As I said, he probably did view it as literal history, given his
religious and cultural background. The text, however, certainly
does not make this obvious, as you asserted.
IMO, it does. And my assertion is based upon an individual having
a basic level of scriptural understanding.
No it's not. It's based on dogma. A basic level of scriptural
understanding does not read things into the text that are clearly not
there.
He probably was, given his cultural
and religious context, but it's not obvious.
More confirmation that anyone who can actually understand
simple language will have no trouble understanding that the
Bible treats Genesis as literal history.
The Bible also treats illnesses as demonic possession,
It is an illness. A spiritual illness.
So demons cause colds?
They could. Not in a direct way of inserting a virus into a cell.
But they could affect you in adverse ways that could certainly
lead you to a condition that would make you more susceptible to
colds.
<sigh>
slavery as
perfectly moral,
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
They where employees with obviously different working
arrangements.
Rationalization will keep you blind to the truth.
and women as property.
The women belongs to the man like the man belongs to the woman.
You seem to be suggesting a problem. Can you provide the exact
verse you are referring to?
Anyone who has done any studying, as you adroitly pointed out, is
well aware of the cultural situation with regard to women. Women
were viewed as the property of their husbands.
Again, you seem to be attaching a negative connotation to that.
Would you mind posting the verses so we can examine your
inference?
Are you now claiming that women were not treated as property or that
such a treatment is not a "negative" thing?
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 11:27:19 AM |
|
|
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94646CE75463Fjefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:QhfJb.56694$6b2.27003@edtnps84:
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9463EB906DADBjefscrrcom@24.25.9.41...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:xP4Jb.55127$6b2.29886@edtnps84:
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9463CBFD894F8jefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:ki3Jb.55100$6b2.31433@edtnps84:
"D. Roland Boehme" <BoehmeDR@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bt1tic$2bma0$1@ID-59782.news.uni-berlin.de...
IKnowHimDoYou schrieb:
Genesis-Myth or History?
Can a person be a Christian and believe that creation is
only symbolic?
This question already shows, that you do not know, what you
are talking about.
1.Tim 1,7
Interesting verse. I really like what he (Paul) had to say
a little further down.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived
was in the transgression.
It's pretty obvious he is referring to real historical
events.
No, it's certainly not obvious.
Perhaps to a biblical newbie no.
I suppose my seminary work has been in vain.
Well sorry no slight intended, but you indicated a lack of
biblical knowledge.
Hardly. I countered your claim that the text makes it "obvious" that
Paul believed the Genesis accounts were literal history. It does
not.
It does. If you have a basic level of biblical knowledge. I thought you
did.
But to anyone who has done the
slightest bit of study on it, it is obvious.
And you only need to look at Paul's other comments that refer
to historical events in Genesis to confirm.
As I said, he probably did view it as literal history, given his
religious and cultural background. The text, however, certainly
does not make this obvious, as you asserted.
IMO, it does. And my assertion is based upon an individual having
a basic level of scriptural understanding.
No it's not. It's based on dogma. A basic level of scriptural
understanding does not read things into the text that are clearly not
there.
Correct, as a basic straightforward reading of the text requires no extra
reading in of anything.
He probably was, given his cultural
and religious context, but it's not obvious.
More confirmation that anyone who can actually understand
simple language will have no trouble understanding that the
Bible treats Genesis as literal history.
The Bible also treats illnesses as demonic possession,
It is an illness. A spiritual illness.
So demons cause colds?
They could. Not in a direct way of inserting a virus into a cell.
But they could affect you in adverse ways that could certainly
lead you to a condition that would make you more susceptible to
colds.
<sigh>
<shrug>
slavery as
perfectly moral,
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
They where employees with obviously different working
arrangements.
Rationalization will keep you blind to the truth.
Ignoring scripture will keep you spouting misleading statements.
and women as property.
The women belongs to the man like the man belongs to the woman.
You seem to be suggesting a problem. Can you provide the exact
verse you are referring to?
Anyone who has done any studying, as you adroitly pointed out, is
well aware of the cultural situation with regard to women. Women
were viewed as the property of their husbands.
Again, you seem to be attaching a negative connotation to that.
Would you mind posting the verses so we can examine your
inference?
Are you now claiming that women were not treated as property or that
such a treatment is not a "negative" thing?
Post the scriptures and we can examine your claim.
I sense an unwillingness from you to do this. Why?
I think we both know why.
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 12:24:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:27:19 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
Are you now claiming that women were not treated as property or that
such a treatment is not a "negative" thing?
Post the scriptures and we can examine your claim.
Numbers 25:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones,
and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him.
18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with
him, keep alive for yourselves.
I sense an unwillingness from you to do this. Why?
I think we both know why.
I think you've just had your bluff called. Twice.
## RELIGION: A disease born of fear, a source of untold misery.
Lucretius
.
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 01:08:42 PM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:1ldbvvoc3o3a2h0c175vp24ocv9nggk0ob@4ax.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:27:19 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
Are you now claiming that women were not treated as property or that
such a treatment is not a "negative" thing?
Post the scriptures and we can examine your claim.
Numbers 25:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones,
and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him.
18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with
him, keep alive for yourselves.
I sense an unwillingness from you to do this. Why?
I think we both know why.
I think you've just had your bluff called. Twice.
See reply to tiger. Comment if you like.
## RELIGION: A disease born of fear, a source of untold misery.
Lucretius
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 12:54:21 PM |
|
|
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in
news:1ldbvvoc3o3a2h0c175vp24ocv9nggk0ob@4ax.com:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:27:19 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
Are you now claiming that women were not treated as property or
that such a treatment is not a "negative" thing?
Post the scriptures and we can examine your claim.
Numbers 25:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little
ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with
him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by
sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I sense an unwillingness from you to do this. Why?
I think we both know why.
I think you've just had your bluff called. Twice.
He'll justify it...and promptly claim that any counter-argument is
based on a lack of Biblical knowledge. He has an airtight case for
his invincible ignorance.
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 01:07:57 PM |
|
|
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94648D87A3DB9jefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in
news:1ldbvvoc3o3a2h0c175vp24ocv9nggk0ob@4ax.com:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:27:19 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
Are you now claiming that women were not treated as property or
that such a treatment is not a "negative" thing?
Post the scriptures and we can examine your claim.
Numbers 25:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little
ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with
him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by
sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I sense an unwillingness from you to do this. Why?
I think we both know why.
I think you've just had your bluff called. Twice.
So in context, what do you think it means. Please be specific, any
cultural or circumstantial evidence will be accepted. Or are you taking
some verses out of context to make a false claim?
He'll justify it...and promptly claim that any counter-argument is
based on a lack of Biblical knowledge. He has an airtight case for
his invincible ignorance.
Properly applied and understood within contextual reasoning, scripture is
inherently invincible.
But hey, an expert like you should know that.
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 04:18:20 PM |
|
|
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:hkjJb.58321$6b2.25912@edtnps84:
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94648D87A3DB9jefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in
news:1ldbvvoc3o3a2h0c175vp24ocv9nggk0ob@4ax.com:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:27:19 GMT, "JISTASKKIN"
<try_not@here.com> wrote:
Are you now claiming that women were not treated as property
or that such a treatment is not a "negative" thing?
Post the scriptures and we can examine your claim.
Numbers 25:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little
ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with
him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by
sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I sense an unwillingness from you to do this. Why?
I think we both know why.
I think you've just had your bluff called. Twice.
So in context, what do you think it means. Please be specific,
any cultural or circumstantial evidence will be accepted. Or are
you taking some verses out of context to make a false claim?
He'll justify it...and promptly claim that any counter-argument
is based on a lack of Biblical knowledge. He has an airtight
case for his invincible ignorance.
Properly applied and understood within contextual reasoning,
scripture is inherently invincible.
LOL.
But hey, an expert like you should know that.
I'm no expert. I have some training, so I'm no "newbie" either. I'm
pretty well convinced that I have a decent grip on what the Bible is
and what it is not.
Again, as you seem to have it all figured out, I see no reason to
waste more time here.
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 04:29:19 PM |
|
|
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9464B00A89BB5jefscrrcom@24.25.9.42...
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:hkjJb.58321$6b2.25912@edtnps84:
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94648D87A3DB9jefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in
news:1ldbvvoc3o3a2h0c175vp24ocv9nggk0ob@4ax.com:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:27:19 GMT, "JISTASKKIN"
<try_not@here.com> wrote:
Are you now claiming that women were not treated as property
or that such a treatment is not a "negative" thing?
Post the scriptures and we can examine your claim.
Numbers 25:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little
ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with
him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by
sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I sense an unwillingness from you to do this. Why?
I think we both know why.
I think you've just had your bluff called. Twice.
So in context, what do you think it means. Please be specific,
any cultural or circumstantial evidence will be accepted. Or are
you taking some verses out of context to make a false claim?
He'll justify it...and promptly claim that any counter-argument
is based on a lack of Biblical knowledge. He has an airtight
case for his invincible ignorance.
Properly applied and understood within contextual reasoning,
scripture is inherently invincible.
LOL.
But hey, an expert like you should know that.
I'm no expert. I have some training, so I'm no "newbie" either. I'm
pretty well convinced that I have a decent grip on what the Bible is
and what it is not.
Again, as you seem to have it all figured out, I see no reason to
waste more time here.
Ok, nice chatting. See you on the next topic.
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 04:48:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:07:57 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94648D87A3DB9jefscrrcom@24.25.9.43...
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in
news:1ldbvvoc3o3a2h0c175vp24ocv9nggk0ob@4ax.com:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:27:19 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
Are you now claiming that women were not treated as property or
that such a treatment is not a "negative" thing?
Post the scriptures and we can examine your claim.
Numbers 25:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little
ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with
him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by
sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I sense an unwillingness from you to do this. Why?
I think we both know why.
I think you've just had your bluff called. Twice.
So in context, what do you think it means. Please be specific, any
cultural or circumstantial evidence will be accepted. Or are you taking
some verses out of context to make a false claim?
Certainly you aren't admitting that the Bible can be taken in ways
other than sola scriptura!!!
He'll justify it...and promptly claim that any counter-argument is
based on a lack of Biblical knowledge. He has an airtight case for
his invincible ignorance.
Properly applied and understood within contextual reasoning, scripture is
inherently invincible.
But hey, an expert like you should know that.
You *are*! Holy cow! Did you mean that?
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 10:52:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:32:16 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
They where employees with obviously different working arrangements.
e.g. "Work, or I'll beat you almost to death.
And when my children inherit you as property they will negotiate with
you in the same manner."
## Religion has not civilized man. Man has civilized religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 11:29:01 AM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:l88bvvo7fafvtnmk6crkja838h6jo92ctk@4ax.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:32:16 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
They where employees with obviously different working arrangements.
e.g. "Work, or I'll beat you almost to death.
Maybe some did. But that doesn't say the Bible condones it.
Did you think it did?
And when my children inherit you as property they will negotiate with
you in the same manner."
I can pass shares to my children.
## Religion has not civilized man. Man has civilized religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 12:20:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:29:01 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
They where employees with obviously different working arrangements.
e.g. "Work, or I'll beat you almost to death.
Maybe some did. But that doesn't say the Bible condones it.
Did you think it did?
I know it does.
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at
his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two,
no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." (Exodus
21:20-21).
And when my children inherit you as property they will negotiate with
you in the same manner."
I can pass shares to my children.
Can you pass PEOPLE?
Leviticus 25:44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have,
it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female
slaves. 45You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing
with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been
born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them
as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as
property. These you may treat as slaves,
## Religion has not civilized man. Man has civilized religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 01:12:41 PM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:08dbvvgqp842g3eku4rl4mtmgqnbrh556e@4ax.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:29:01 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
They where employees with obviously different working arrangements.
e.g. "Work, or I'll beat you almost to death.
Maybe some did. But that doesn't say the Bible condones it.
Did you think it did?
I know it does.
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at
his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two,
no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." (Exodus
21:20-21).
I am a little rusty on this. Are you basing your argument on mosaic law?
And when my children inherit you as property they will negotiate with
you in the same manner."
I can pass shares to my children.
Can you pass PEOPLE?
Leviticus 25:44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have,
it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female
slaves. 45You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing
with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been
born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them
as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as
property. These you may treat as slaves,
And again. what part of the Law are you basing this on? And how is this
portion of scripture relevant to your point?
## Religion has not civilized man. Man has civilized religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 02:49:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:12:41 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
They where employees with obviously different working arrangements.
e.g. "Work, or I'll beat you almost to death.
Maybe some did. But that doesn't say the Bible condones it.
Did you think it did?
I know it does.
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at
his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two,
no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." (Exodus
21:20-21).
I am a little rusty on this. Are you basing your argument on mosaic law?
You differentiate between Mosaic Law and "The Bible"?
OK, in Philemon, Paul condones Roman slave law, and in his other
letters emphasizes that attitude.
And when my children inherit you as property they will negotiate with
you in the same manner."
I can pass shares to my children.
Can you pass PEOPLE?
Leviticus 25:44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have,
it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female
slaves. 45You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing
with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been
born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them
as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as
property. These you may treat as slaves,
And again. what part of the Law are you basing this on? And how is this
portion of scripture relevant to your point?
The issue is "does the Bible condone slavery".
The point is that there are numerous passages in the Bible that
clearly condone slavery and I quoted two of them.
Would you like some more? Here is an excerpt from a website on the
subject:
There is not a single condemnation of slavery by Jesus in the entire
gospels. Yet it is inconceivable that Jesus was unaware of slavery and
the moral issue since "Jesus lived in a world where slavery was
common.
There seem to have been slave revolts in Palestine and Jordan in
Jesus' youth. There were innumerable slaves of the Emperor and the
Roman state; the Jerusalem temple owned slaves; the High Priests owned
slaves (one of them lost an ear in Jesus' arrest); all of the rich and
many of the middle classes owned slaves." Yet "Jesus never attacked
the practice. He took the state of affairs for granted" Professor
Morton Smith, Columbia University, What The Bible Says 1989 p143.
What of the attitude of Paul ? He wrote : "Those who are slaves must
consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will
speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching. Slaves belonging to
Christian masters must not despise them, for they are their brothers."
(1 Timothy 6:1-2).
Paul's reference to "Christian masters" immediately reveals that early
Christians owned slaves. But far from condemning the practice amongst
fellow Christians and in the wider world, Paul does the opposite by
arguing that slave masters, be they Christians or non-Christians, must
be given respect by their slaves. It is striking just how emphatic
Paul is about this, particularly in his use of words such as "must"
and "all".
Paul's letter to Titus tells slaves in no uncertain terms that :
"Slaves are to submit to their masters and please them in all things.
They must not answer them back or steal from them. Instead, they must
show that they are always good and faithful, so as to bring credit to
the teaching about God our Saviour in all they do." 2: 9-10.
In Colossians (3:22-4:1) Paul clearly tells Christian slave masters to
be "fair and just in the way you treat your slaves". Yet there is no
condemnation of slavery. A slave may become a "brother" in the faith,
but he or she is still nevertheless a slave, still a piece of
property.
Rather than condemn slave owning by Christians, Paul tells the slaves
they own to "obey your human masters in all things" (the NEB
translates this as "give entire obedience"). This is a quite
staggering thing to command a person to do
and beggars belief. Far from encouraging a slave to challenge his
status he does the very opposite : "Whatever you do, work at it with
all your heart, as though you were working for the Lord". Working hard
as a slave has thus become a religious duty. Paul then writes that if
they work hard as a slave they will be rewarded in the next world. He
thus helps to underpin slavery.
Paul repeats these commands in his letter to the Ephesians.
The first letter from Peter (1 Peter 2:18-19) tells slaves to:
"submit to your masters and show them complete respect, not only to
those who are kind and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
God will bless you for this, if you endure the pain of undeserved
suffering because you are conscious of his will." The biblical writer
is unequivocal in demanding respect for slave owners.
## Religion has not civilized man. Man has civilized religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis-Myth or History? |
02 Jan 2004 03:21:45 PM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:oolbvvsr33ujo1vq4j7rhhaev8qunefu4d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:12:41 GMT, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com>
wrote:
In the sense that slaves are employees.
No, they were slaves. They were not paid and they were not given
holidays off.
They where employees with obviously different working arrangements.
e.g. "Work, or I'll beat you almost to death.
Maybe some did. But that doesn't say the Bible condones it.
Did you think it did?
I know it does.
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at
his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two,
no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." (Exodus
21:20-21).
I am a little rusty on this. Are you basing your argument on mosaic law?
You differentiate between Mosaic Law and "The Bible"?
OK, in Philemon, Paul condones Roman slave law, and in his other
letters emphasizes that attitude.
Granted, not an esy issue to understand.
And when my children inherit you as property they will negotiate
with
you in the same manner."
I can pass shares to my children.
Can you pass PEOPLE?
Leviticus 25:44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have,
it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female
slaves. 45You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing
with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been
born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them
as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as
property. These you may treat as slaves,
And again. what part of the Law are you basing this on? And how is this
portion of scripture relevant to your point?
The issue is "does the Bible condone slavery".
The point is that there are numerous passages in the Bible that
clearly condone slavery and I quoted two of them.
Would you like some more? Here is an excerpt from a website on the
subject:
I would say this here is a good read to properly understand the issue of
slavery in the Bible. Technically, it is the best I have ever seen.
Good question...
....Does God condone slavery in the Bible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
OT: Created Nov 9, 1997 // NT: Created Dec 30, 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Every so often I get a question about slavery in the Bible, or someone sends
me a 'spoof' of the biblical Mosaic regulations concerning 'slavery'.
Sometimes the issue concerns Paul in the NT, as this thoughtful quote might
indicate:
"I think a lot of the problems you spill a lot of "electrons" on can be
understood better by looking at the Bible as an accommodated and historical
revelation. In my judgment, the most important example of how this concept
operates in scripture is the Bible's approach to slavery, especially as it
appears in Paul's writings. Paul clearly understood that the gospel obviated
all class distinctions (Gal. 3:28) but was never willing to draw out the
social ramifications of his understanding of what it meant to be "in
Christ." Philemon is the most troubling account of Paul's social
conservatism, for here he had the opportunity to tell his friend Philemon
that slavery was inconsistent with the gospel and that his Christian duty
obligated him to manumit Onesimus and any other slaves he might have.
Unfortunately, Paul danced around the topic of manumission but never made it
an explicit directive; accordingly, it made the problem more difficult for
later theologians. We can only imagine how western civilization might have
been changed had Paul openly stated what we now all agree on: that for one
human to own another is inconsistent with the imago dei and the freedom of
the gospel.
Of course, Paul did not do so, probably for a number of reasons. He may
have still been freaked out by the "crisis" he speaks of in I Cor. 7, or he
may have felt that an explicit position on manumission would have made the
gospel appear too radical (although he didn't shy away from "radicalness" in
other areas and manumission was considered by many in the Roman empire to be
a noble act of kindness). At any rate, it took theologians and activists
1900 years to finally convince Christendom of the moral bankruptcy of
slavery, and frankly, from a perspective of exegesis and Biblical theology,
the fire-eaters had a better argument in ante-bellum America than the
abolitionists, largely due to the statements made by Paul in Ephesians and
Philemon."
I replied to this part of the email with a 'directional' statement...
"The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there
is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has
SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as
slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic
understandings of the period and area. In the NT case, the problem is hugely
complicated by the SEEMING position that ALL socio-economic institutions are
'neutral'; that they can be either used wonderfully or abused woefully...for
example, i am called to be a 'slave to Christ'...and to obey (within
conscience and stewardship) the demands of oppressive governments...this
area of cultural forms is notoriously difficult (in my opinion) so the
Philemon situation is not at all decisive or instructive for me...(i am
familiar, however, with those civil war debates, but consider much of that
simply bad theological method)...simply put, i think the problem is more
complex than a simple 'Paul hedged here'...i am still thinking through this,
so dont take my comments as finished goods ...
And hence I want to come back to this issue in this series...
There are several elements of this study, which I will no doubt have to
publish piecemeal ("oh no! not ANOTHER unfinished series in the Tank!"):
1.. Introductory remarks
2.. The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its
nature, purpose, and structure.
3.. Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law.
4.. References to slavery in later OT books.
5.. The issue of 'slavery' in the NT/Apostolic world (esp. Paul)
.............................................................................
..............
1.. Introductory remarks
I am a child of the Western World, and a native of the rural American
South. The word 'slavery' is such a powerful vortex of images, meanings,
cries, and grief to me. Any technical discussion of any type of forced labor
or corvee becomes immediately inflamed when the word 'slavery' is attached
to it, and I suspect that many others share this association.
Scholars in the ANE have often abandoned the use of the general term
'slavery' in descriptions of the many diverse forms of master-servant that
are manifest in the ancient world. There are very few 'true' slave societies
in the world (with Rome and Greek being two of the major ones!), and ancient
Israel will be seen to be outside this classification as well (in
legislation, not practice).
Accordingly, I think--to avoid the inflammatory associations that
naturally occur for Westerners when something is referred to as
'slavery'--it wise to carefully set out the structure of what we consider
'slavery' today, and compare that to the OT institution of 'Hebrew slavery'.
With this in mind, I want to set out the basic elements associated with
historical slavery, as practiced in America before the American Civil War.
(This is not meant to be exhaustive, but simply to highlight the aspects of
the institution that strike our sensibilities today.)
a.. Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the
elite.
b.. Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured
by force and sold via slave-traders.
c.. Treatment: Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards,
and punishments were extreme.
d.. Treatment: As a matter of course, slaves lived in radical separation
from their owners and did not participate in many of the 'benefits' of the
owners' fortunes.
e.. Legal Status: Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to
their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a
bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no
legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their
'property'. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic
value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.
f.. Legal Status: Slaves could not have their own property--all they had
belonged to their 'owner'.
g.. Exit: Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining
freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting
freedom, it was generally a 'bare bones' release--no property went with the
freedman.
Garnsey identifies many of these elements in his understanding of what he
terms 'chattel slavery' [HI:ISAA:1]:
"A slave was property. The slaveowner's rights over his slave-property
were total, covering the person as well as the labor of the slave. The slave
was kinless, stripped of his or her old social identity in the process of
capture, sale and deracination, and denied to capacity to forge new bonds of
kinship through marriage alliance. These are the three basic components of
slavery."
With this framework in mind, let's consider how the Mosaic Law structured
'Hebrew slavery'...
2.. The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its
purpose, and structure.
Hebrew 'slavery' occurs in a very specific socio-economic-religious
context, and only actually makes sense (in its structure) in that context.
To state this context simply:
a.. There were not supposed to be any poor in Israel at all! (Compliance
with the spirit and letter of the covenant would have produced a society
marked by righteousness, compassion, and prosperity.)
However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD
your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless
you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow
all these commands I am giving you today. (Deut 15.4)
This makes any economic situations involving slavery exceptional.
b.. God is a realist (Deut 15.11!); hence He made a wide range of
provisions in the Law for the poor. Some of these are:
1.. There are numerous instructions to merchants and farmers to
provide special help for the disadvantaged.
a.. The entire seventh year of the planting cycle was dedicated to
the poor (and servants)!
"For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops,
11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then
the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may
eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.
(Ex 23.10)
Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for
you -- for yourself, your manservant and maidservant, and the hired worker
and temporary resident who live among you, (Lev 25.6)
b.. They were instructed to leave the margins around the fields
unharvested, and to not go over the fields but once:
"`When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very
edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go
over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen.
Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. (Lev 19.10;
23.22; Deut 24.19f)
c.. The poor were to be exempt from interest, and were to be buy
food at cost.
"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support
himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident,
so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind
from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live
among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a
profit. (Lev 25.35ff)
d.. The entire Levitical tithe of EVERY THIRD YEAR was to be shared
with the poor!
28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that
year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have
no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and
the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so
that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Deut
14.28ff)
2.. Even the sacrificial system made allowances for economic status:
"`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young
pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin -- one for a sin offering and
the other for a burnt offering..."`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to
bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin --
one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering." (Lev 5.7,11; see
also Lev 14.21)
If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, he
is to present the person to the priest, who will set the value for him
according to what the man making the vow can afford. (Lev 27.8)
3.. Indeed, there was even a major structure in the economic system
designed to support the poor--the automatic cancellation of debts every
seven years!
At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how
it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his
fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or
brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3
You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your
brother owes you. (Deut 15.1ff)
c.. Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are
cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt (which
generally DID conform to the "western" paradigm described above). She is
told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in
the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12,
21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19). Just to cite a couple:
Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day
is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither
you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your
ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so
that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that
you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there
with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deut 5.13f)
When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines
again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22
Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do
this. (Deut 24.21)
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves
you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you
release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from
your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD
your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the
LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. (Deut
15.15)
d.. Finally, the Covenant Community and its law was meant to demonstrate
'how it should be done' within ANE communities. The content of the Mosaic
law was designed to show forth both the compassion of God (e.g. treatment of
neighbor and the disadvantaged) and the holiness/purity of God (e.g. the
sacrificial system and cleanness stipulations). One would therefore expect
that intra-Hebrew dealings would reflect a much higher standard than the law
codes of the surrounding nations (as indeed the historical record generally
confirms).
See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded
me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take
possession of it. 6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom
and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and
say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. What
other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD
our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so
great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am
setting before you today? " (Deut 4.5)
19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel.
20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. (Ps
147.19)
With this as background, I want to compare the verses we have on this
institution with the preceding description of Western antebellum slavery.
a.. Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the
elite.
OT: There is a very fundamental difference here. The 'slavery' of the OT
was essentially designed to serve the poor!:
"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support
himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident,
so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind
from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live
among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a
profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you
the land of Canaan and to be your God.
39 "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells
himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a
hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until
the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he
will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they
must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear
your God. (Lev 25.35-43)
Indeed, as we shall note below, the proceeds of the transaction went to
the servant only--each 'sold himself' to someone.
Notice that the sole motive for allowing 'slavery' is so the poor can
continue in the land, and that it is NEVER 'forever' (indeed, other passages
indicate that it was 6 years at the most!). This is radically different than
an elitest-motive.
[Even chattel slavery, however, often produced this benefit. So Glancy
[HI:ISAA:5]:
"This points to a paradox at the heart of the slave system. Slavery is
the most degrading and exploitative institution invented by man. Yet many
slaves in ancient societies...were more secure and economically better off
than the mass of the free poor, whose employment was irregular, low-grade
and badly paid...It was not unknown for free men to sell themselves into
slavery to escape poverty and debt, or even to take up posts of
responsibility in the domestic sphere."
But this was not the POINT of such slavery, whereas in the OT context,
this benefit is the SOLE JUSTIFICATION for even allowing a watered-down,
temporary, semi-servanthood.]
b.. Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured
by force and sold via slave-traders.
OT:: In the OT, this relationship was overwhelmingly voluntary, and
forced enslavement was a capital offense!
a.. Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death!
"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him
when he is caught must be put to death. " (Ex 21.16)
If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and
treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge
the evil from among you. (Deut 24.7; cf. I Tim 1.10).
b.. The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the
person himself initiating the transaction--it is ALWAYS couched in the terms
of 'selling oneself':
"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself
to you..." (Lev 25.39)
"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one
of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among
you or to a member of the alien's clan... (Lev 25.47)
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and
serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. (Deut
15.12)
c.. Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in
length (e.g. Deut 15.12 above), continuation of this relationship was
possible, but ONLY AS a strictly voluntary act of the 'slave':
"But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and
children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before
the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear
with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. (Ex 21.5)
But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you,"
because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take
an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become
your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant. (Deut 15.16f)
[Note: if a person had a wife/family when he sold himself, then the
wife/family went free when his freedom occurred (If he comes alone, he is to
go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4
If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the
woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go
free. Ex 21.3). Since the master gave him a wife without requiring the
bride-price, the servant would be required to 'bride purchase' the wife.
This motif can also be seen in the strange case of where a man 'sells' his
daughter into a situation involving marital rights (Ex 21.7ff).]
d.. The only clear case of involuntary servitude was in the case of a
thief that was too poor to make restitution for good stolen, and here is was
strictly an economic measure:
"A thief must certainly make restit | | | | | | | | | | | | |
