Originally posted by Zahlanzi
wall of text to explain how you completely missed the point.
It seems "wall of text" is becoming a popular phrase on the Forum meaning, perhaps, "something that I don't want to read but just totally ignore." But I am not above missing people's points though I made some signigicant ones TO the discussion on "Another OT law."
i have never said the israelite slavery system was better or worse than the american one. nor will i ever care to. they are both abominable and shameful. nor have i tried to shame you into something as if you have anything to do with slavery and with what your ancestors did.
I say that you are flat wrong on characterizing the indentured servitude of ancient Israel as abominable. And my "wall of text" gave some reasons why it was not "abominable."
Not ideal is not "abominable" to me. God had promised the nation prosperity IF they would obey His law. God knew that there would be plenty of times when they failed. And instead of prosperity there would be poverty. When poverty arose many ways of coping with poverty would be LIKE the surrounding societies. The laws God gave provided guidelines as to how and how far they were to be like OTHER nations in having a system of indentured servitude.
While it was not utopian it was not "abominable". It was exemplary for the time and a worthy example which lifted Israel above the other heathen societies that had slavery systems.
i merely pointed out that many slavers justify the system with "but look how well we're treating the slaves, they should be grateful".
If that was your main point, I of course agree that American Slavers
ATTEMPTED to justify their slave trade and institution, which was "abominable" by saying they were obeying God. And that point I referenced in the quotation from Paul Copan repeated in part here -
"But this particular law reveals just how different Israel's laws were from the antebellum South despite the Confederacy's claims of following the Bible faithfully ..." [my emphasis]
Compared to the Old Testament prohibition against turning a runaway slave back to an oppressive master, the Southern States' Fugitive Slave Law
was an abomination.
Of course no one in his right mind wants to be a slave.
But if you had no choice, which society would you rather have had to be a slave in - the Confederate American South or ancient Israel under the Mosaic Law ?
I think you would choose, if you had to, the nation of Israel. You could not suffer the abomination of kidnapping, or at least had legal recourse to protest it. You would not suffer the abomination of cruel and harsh service, or at least would have had holy and legal recourse to protest it. And you could run away and be harbored by a sympathetic person assisting you who did so legally.
that is besides the point. the point in this thread is that not only does slavery exist, but FREE women can be sold into slavery if their father wishes to. the point of this thread is that you defend such a system
I will turn my attention to the rights of the women next. You see
"no kidnapping" according to the law of God should include forceful turning over a family member to another person against the family member's will.
So while I DO acknowledge the passages about selling a work age youngster into servitude, I do not see that this entails a kind of "kidnap" by forceful induction into slavery.
But I will give your concern some more backround study since you just assume it without giving backround passages to prove it.
These are parents whom we may safely assume had the welfare of their own children at heart. If they could not afford to shelter and feed the family, dept servitude at least assured them that their child would be cared for and the dept would be serviced. And of course the year of release would prevent them from having to be slaves perpetually for the rest of their life.
I do not yet see in my mind the daughter kicking and screaming as she is being dragged out of the tent to be a slave, forced by her unloving parents. That is the picture I think you are concerned with. But it may not be so just because you desire to score points against Yahweh and Israel.
if i would have presented this debate to a normal person, the debate would have been over in 10 seconds. any normal person would agree that this is abominable and believe me weird for bringing it up, as if it would be up for debate.
I think a "normal person" to you is someone who is going to say "Yes, Yes, Yes whatever you say" as you launch your skeptical diatribes and "gems" against the Scriptures of God.
More normal would be just to "Yes" you to death while you let off steam about the Bible in an often ignorant way. Well then I guess I am not "normal" enough for you in that regard.
I think it is normal to regard history as being nuanced in many matters. And a normal approach to history is to consider similarities and differences carefully rather than just quickly accept blanket statements.
you are not a normal person. you seek attenuating circumstances. you seek excuses. you try to find loopholes. mistranslations. you try to find anything that would improve slightly an evil thing.
I have already said I don't think the word "abominable" or "evil" is appropriate to the guidelines God gave to Israel in the slave laws.
There are laws that I do not like at all. But some people like you do not consider that whole picture. That is that for offenses, sins, and trespasses there were also provided by God offerings of redemption.
The case of the woman's hand being cut off is disputed. Some Hebrew language scholars say it is a public shaving. They do so based on the meaning of the translation issues.
No, I do not like either an amputated hand or a public shaving. But as a Christian, I realize that the law of God was as a school master leading man to
grace. But this is another discussion.
Now you have analyzed my supposed motives. Let me speak to your motives.
You come here to essentially say "At least I AM not so bad." Your complaint against the Bible, I think, is mainly to show that you are more righteous than God. Of course if you think God needs to come to YOU to learn about good behavior than that absolves you from any obligation to be saved by Him from your sins.
Basically, your mentality is that God needs to be saved from HIS sins by coming to YOU. There is real comfort to the sinner in imagining that God requires the sinner's justification rather than the other way around.
So now we both have had a turn in a little psycho analysis. Shall we get back to the discussion ?
you would not do this if i presented something horrible from the Quran.
I am not a Muslim.
I am not one who has read the Quran all the way through to date.
I am not an apologist for Islam.
And I might not come to the defense if you also railed against Colonel Sander's Southern Fried Chicken either.
So my interest is the Christian Spirituality and the Bible, and comments upon that cause my enthusiastic participation. So what ?
I don't present Islam as the ultimate truth. I proclaim Christ the Son of God as the ultimate truth. And Christ is connected with the whole Bible. So I sat up and took notice to your accusations against the Bible.
I do not LIKE everything I read in the Bible. I don't think anyone does.
But I will exercise caution against the railings of the skeptical like yourself.
you would not do this if i presented actions of the nazi party.
you believe the bible and events presented in it deserve special circumstances. all this effort to preserve something unworthy of preservation.
The Law of Moses as a means to be justified forever before God HAS not been preserved.
God came and made a NEW COVENANT. And that is why I am thankful we have a
New Testament.
You think you're doing a significant thing by combing through the Old Testament for things to jeer at. I am not saying we should go back and live in theocratic Israel in the land of Canaan.
I'll consider your diatribes point by point
fairly. And I would remind you that the Christians is not called to preserve the old slave system of Israel as practiced in Canaan. Rather he is to avail himself of the NEW COVENANT God promised to make.
I will remind you of just the most crucial points about this promised new covenant.
" Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, NOT LIKE THE COVENANT which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah.
But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Jehovah: I will put My law within them and write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.
And they will no longer teach, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for all of them will know Me, from the little one among them even to the great one among them, declares Jehovah, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
So I may seem to you to be doing "knee jerk" defense of the Old Testament. Maybe it is because I sense you are doing "knee jerk" hunting for things to be bothered about in the "ministry of condemnation" - the old covenant - the Law.
I'm examining some of your bones to choke on and now ....