Forum
 |  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Reply with quote  #136 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myshkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerslip

Some of you guys need to learn how to state your point in a few paragraphs.  Longer responses are not better responses. 

What are you, the forum police?

Too bad you're not King of the Forum, then you could impose idiocy on everyone by force rather than just being a whiner.

Sir, please be respectful of forum members. Thank you
Reply with quote  #137 
wow...I like this guy, he's funny. 
Reply with quote  #138 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Wagner"
I only made a brief comment about the racial discrimination found in the bible... nobody had touched this question anymore. Nobody even tried to refute this assertion.
No one may have touched upon it, but that does not mean the idea that the Pentateuch was "racist" is anything but pure fantasy (and since contemporary academic literature overwhelmingly negates it, ignorance).
________________________________________
1. SOME BIBLICAL PASSAGES

"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." (Leviticus 19:34)

'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; (Matthew 25:35)

"And you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Exodus 22:21)

"And you shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Exodus 23:9)

'Thus says the LORD, "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3)

and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.' (Zechariah 7:10)

'When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. (Leviticus 19:33)

"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. (Exodus 12:48)

"The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you." (Exodus 12:49)

'Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:10)

There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'" (Leviticus 24:22)
_________________________________________
2. ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT

ALIEN/FOREIGNER IS NOT A RACIAL DESIGNATION IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
"Israelite law made special provision for resident aliens, along with orphans and widows, to safeguard their more vulnerable socioeconomic condition. Leviticus 19:34 takes the principle of Leviticus 19:18, to love one's neighbor as oneself, and extends it to the alien, specifying that the 'alien (ger) sojourning (gur) with you" was to be treated just as the native-born (ezrah): 'You must love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. I am Yahweh your God!.'" ibid, p. 33.

"The traditional application of alien status to the patriarchs shows that it was not simply an indication of foreign ethnicity; however, but a particularly vulnerable socio-economic status, calling for special protections in line with ancient hospitality traditions. The pentateuchal laws regarding aliens demonstrate a clear humanitarian concern, including guarantees of evenhanded justice without prejudice to their status, fair payment of wages, gleaning rights to the leftover harvest, other provisions of food from the triennial tithe, inclusion in feasts alongside the orphan and widow, and inclusion in the sabbath rest. The call to treat the alien with justice and special consideration was motivated by Israelite identification with the vulnerable position of the alien, which had been such a formative part of their own experience..." (R. J. D. Knauth, "Aliens" in T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament/Pentateuch: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (2003), p. 27).

"The English word 'alien' in the Pentateuch most commonly translates the Hebrew word ger (root: gwr), but also on occasion zar (root zwr) or nokri (nkr) and its cognates. Hebrew ger has been translated variously as 'alien,' 'sojourner,' 'stranger,' 'foreigner,' 'non-Israelite' resident alien,' 'foreign resident,' 'protected citizen' or 'client.' Perhaps the closest equivalent in terms of its most common usage for people who have been displaced by a famine (as in Gen 12:10; 26:3; 47:4; Ruth 1:1; 1 Kings 17:20; 2 Kings 8:1) or war (as in 2 Sam 4:3; Is 16:4) would be 'refugee.' It often occurs in conjunction with tosab ('resident,' 'dweller,')... Since ger is used for both Israelites and non-Israelites in different contexts, it clearly indicates something more than simple ethnicity..." (R. J. D. Knauth, Aliens, DOOTP (2003), p. 27)

ALL THE FATHERS, AND MOSES HIMSELF, WERE "ALIENS"; DAVID AND SOLOMON HAD "ALIEN BLOOD"
"The complex nature of what it means to be a ger is revealed by its assignment to Israelites of various categories. The patriarchs themselves all carried this status initially within the land of Canaan and other places where they traveled... A similar pronouncement of historical self-identification with the ger is found in Ps 39:12 (MT 39:12): 'For a sojourner (ger) am I with you, a squatter (tosab) like all my fathers" -as well as in 1 Chron 29:15: "For sojourners are we before you, and squatters, like all our fathers." The term ger and its cognates are applied to each of the patriarchs individually -to Abraham (Gen 17:7-8; 20:1; 21:34; 23:4), Lot (Gen 19:9); Isaac (Gen 35:27; 37:1), Jacob (Gen 28:4; 32:4 [MT 32:5] Esau (Gen 36:6-7) and Joseph and his brothers (Gen 47:4, 9) and collectively, in the context of their time in Canaan (Gen 17:7-8; 21:23; 23:4; 36:6-7; Ex 6:4, cf. Ps 105:6-15/1 Chron 16:13-22)... Abraham applied the term to himself among the Hittites at Hebron in Genesis 23:4 when he sought to purchase a burial plot for his wife Sarah: 'I am a resident alien (ger wetosab) among you...' Moses is given ger status with respect to his time in Midian (Ex 2:22; 18:3). For the Israelites generally it is applied to their longer experience in Egypt (Gen 15:13; 47:4, 9; Ex 22:21 [MT 22:20]; 23:9; Lev 19:34; Deut 10:19; 23:7 [MT 23:8]. The Israelite experience as aliens in Egypt is then used regularly in the law as an argument not to mistreat non-Israelite foreigners (Ex 23:9; Lev 19:33-34; Deut 10:19; 16:9-12)." ]R. J. D. Knauth, "Aliens" in T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament/Pentateuch: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (2003), p. 28).

Israel's Kings David, Solomon, and their descendants had "foreign blood" (cf. the book of Ruth) The line of Ruth and Boaz led directly to King David, and, of course, eventually to the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

"in legal matters, with few exceptions, the alien was generally to be treated the same as the native Israelite, or with greater consideration" ibid, p. 29

"...aliens could also find forgiveness of sin before Yahweh through ritual atonement, as in Numbers 15:26, where aliens are forgiven for unintentional sin along with the rest of the Israelite community when atonement is made... In Exodus 12:48-49 the general principle appling the same law to the alien (ger) as to the native (ezrah) was established in the context of provision for circumcised aliens and purchased slaves to participate in the Passover... Thus on condition of cirucmcision, the alien here would seem essentially to have been allowed to become an Israelite (a 'convert' or 'proselyte,' as translated in the LXX), since the circumcision indicated full covenantal commitment and integration. Thus D. Kellermann (TDOT 2.439-49) notes that in a number of pentateuchal passages the ger is treated as a 'fully integrate proselyte' (cf. Ezek 47:22-23, where the ger even qualifies to receive a portion of the land as an inheritance equally with the native Israelite). Through all of this one gains the distinct general impression that resident aliens were envisioned as being accorded equal treatment under the law (Lev 19:33-34; cf. Deut 24:14-15; 17-18), with only a few exceptions." (ibid, pp. 30-31).

"Israelite slaves acquired by resident aliens were seen as being at special risk for the abuses prohibited by Israelite law, lending a special urgency to rights of redemption. Israelites were therefore enjoined to check up on resident aliens, since it was not assumed that they would abide by the laws voluntarily. The law of release, along with the non-oppressive treatment clause, was to be enforced on the alien creditor by Israelite kinsmen, who were to ensure that the laws were honored (Lev 25:47-55). Israelite authority to impose such provisions via traditional kinship institutions was assumed. The implicit assumption here is that the foreigner is less likely to be swayed to obedience by appeal to religiously based justifications, and thus would need more immediate inducement." ibid, p. 31.

"RUTHLESSNESS" TO AN ALIEN WAS EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY PROHIBITED BY LAW
"Thus the Covenant Code dictates that Israelites were neither to mistreat nor oppress an alien, for they had been aliens in Egypt (Ex 22:21 [MT 22: 20]; 23:9). The same motivation was used to encourage the Israelites to treat aliens just like the native-born, loving them as themselves (Lev 19:33-34). Specifically this meant providing fair judgment in legal disputes for Israelites and aliens alike (Deut 1:16-17), not taking advantage of a needy hireling, whether alien or native, but paying wages on time (Deut 24:14) and not depriving an alien of justice, again remembering the former Israelite slavery in Egypt (Deut 24:17-18). Deuteronomy 27:19 highlights the withholding of justice from the alien as a cause for bringing curses on the people. Aliens were to be treated fairly and righteously, against all temptation to take advantage of them. Out of consideration for their especially vulnerable economic position -that is, not having any inheritance of land or family ties to fall back on in time of crisis- aliens were given rights and privileges similar to or even exceeding those of the native Israelite. Pentateuchal law answered their precarious vulnerability to economic hardship with charitable provision of basic necessities like food for the alien. The gleanings of the harvest and the leftover grapes were reserved for the poor and the alien (Lev 19:10; 23:22; Deut 24: 19-22). The triennial tithe was to be available for aliens along with Levites, orphans and widows (Deut 14:28-29; 26:12-13). Aliens were to be included in celebratory feasts along with orphans and widows (Deut 16:11, 14). The alien was also to share freely in the sabbatical-year produce, which was to be available for aliens along with landowners' families, slaves, hirelings, and animals (Lev 25:6; cf. Ex 23:11, where it is to be given to the poor generally and then to wild animals)." ibid, pp. 32-33
Reply with quote  #139 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "tigerslip"
The Bible condones... using female slaves for sex
this claim is occasionally made by amateur counter-apologists; it is completely false.

Reply with quote  #140 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myshkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunman
OK--so they were not allowed to cause their slaves serious injuries like striking their eyes or teeth out. But they were still allowed to beat them so hard that they were incapable of getting up for two days. How is that any better?
Duh, where does it say they were ALLOWED?

It says IF this happens this way... the consequences are thus.

Where is the word allowed, or "can" as in "can beat," in the text? Oh, it's not there? I see, YOU'RE ADDING IT.

Anyone who thinks Moses's purpose was to mandate or allow beating in this chapter is either dysfunctionally literate or has an overactive imagination.


This!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myshkin
Moses was a legal realist. He said, knock out your precious servant's tooth and you must set him free. What he never said was "wanna knock out a tooth? Go right ahead." The rabbis and the holy fathers knew perfectly well Moses was not speaking only of teeth.  But people will continue to be blind to the obvious, as the Son of God also taught.

As if someone could amputate a leg and remain above the law so long as a tooth remained unmolested! What kind of imbecile could believe that is what Moses really meant?
This too!  ;-)

I was going to post something on this, but it would be silly to try to top Myshkin.
sirhemlock
Reply with quote  #141 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ”Wagner”
context makes it clear that LEX TALIONIS was to be applied in the case of men who are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and causes serious injury (Exodus 21.22-25)
You really don’t get what casuistic law is, Wagner. So eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, only applied in ancient Israel if a pregnant lady’s eye or toothwas involved? Excuse me for asking, Wagner, but does anyone but you believe that??

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by “Wagner”
Sexual violation of a betrothed slave woman led not to death, as in the case of a free woman (Deut. 22.25-27).
What?

Deut 22:25-27 deals with rape of someone betrothed.

Lev 19:20 deals with intercourse, not rape. Note THEY shall not be put to death (for adultery). The betrothal in the latter case does not indicate the death penalty for both parties, which usually comes with adultery or sex with a betrothed person, because the servant was not free to be legally betrothed until the end of her contract.

So Wagner makes out as if the only difference is that the woman in Deuteronomy is not a servant; however in Deuteronomy the context is rape; in Leviticus the context is intercourse. Apples and oranges, and eisegesis.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by “Wagner”
The text gives a motive why Israelites slaves should have far more rights than foreign slaves: “They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 25.55)
The only problem is your idea that Israelite servants had “far more rights” is a fiction in your own mind. A basic principle of Jewish law –rightly understood!- is extreme lengths to ensure judicial fairness to Israelite and stranger alike.

 

"The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you." (Exodus 12:49)

 

“There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 24:22).

 

“The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19:34).


Quote:
Originally Posted by “Wagner”
From this examples it is clear that foreign slaves didn’t have the same rights as Hebrew slaves. But if God created all humans in his own image, why there is such a racial discrimination?

 

"'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, 48he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him: 49An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. 50He and his buyer are to count the time from the year he sold himself up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for his release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired man for that number of years. 51If many years remain, he must pay for his redemption a larger share of the price paid for him. 52If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, he is to compute that and pay for his redemption accordingly. 53He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly. 54"'Even if he is not redeemed in any of these ways, he and his children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 25.47-55)

Um, no,  this law is not “racial discrimination.” Your caricatures of the Jews are anything but “clear.”And an alien (Heb. ger) was not a racial designation.  See my earlier post.

 

The Hebrew law is in principle adamantly and diametrically opposed to legal discrimination against aliens:

 

"The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you." (Exodus 12:49); “There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 24:22); “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were aliens in the land of EgyptI am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19:34), etc.)

 

But how can this passage possibly mandate special care be taken by the Israelites for their own Israelite brothers who are sold as slaves to foreigners and not be “racial discrimination” seeing as it only sets out that Israelites should take special care to ensure the welfare of Hebrew slaves (*gasp*) owned by foreigners? It is interesting that Wagner has never come across the usual answer in his studies. Why not? Selective study, perhaps?

"Israelite slaves acquired by resident aliens were seen as being at special risk for the abuses prohibited by Israelite law, lending a special urgency to rights of redemption. Israelites were therefore enjoined to check up on resident aliens, since it was not assumed that they would abide by the laws voluntarily. The law of release, along with the non-oppressive treatment clause, was to be enforced on the alien creditor by Israelite kinsmen, who were to ensure that the laws were honored (Lev 25:47-55). Israelite authority to impose such provisions via traditional kinship institutions was assumed. The implicit assumption here is that the foreigner is less likely to be swayed to obedience by appeal to religiously based justifications, and thus would need more immediate inducement" (R. J. D. Knauth, "Aliens" in T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament/Pentateuch: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (2003), p. 31).


 


Reply with quote  #142 
sirhemlock,

Pretty good info there. It always amazes me how the scripture can withstand any attack when the whole context of its message is read. It stands up very well. Its almost as if it is inviting the human heart to come forward while exposing it, truly it is living and active.
Reply with quote  #143 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myshkin
What are you, the forum police?

Too bad you're not King of the Forum, then you could impose idiocy on everyone by force rather than just being a whiner.

Lol, Congrats Myshkin, you are the first person I will officially call a moron on this forum.

Moron.
Reply with quote  #144 
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkmeup2003
Forgetful or willfully ignorant?


Your arrogance doesn’t allows me to be right?

Ok, I don't have time nor patience to refute every assertion you make. So I will give a brief response.

Exodus 21:20 states that the master is not punished if the slave gets up after he was striked:

Quote:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (Exodus 21:20,21)


If there is no punishment for some action, than it means that this action is allowed.

Sirhemlock cited Lex Talionis from Exodus 21:23-25 as it were a general rule for punish the master who injures his slaves. But it is clear that this is not true. Let's take a look at the passage:

Quote:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely e]">[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


It is obvious that lex talionis from exodus 21:23,24 is related to verse 22. Verse 22 states that "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined". Then verse 23 and 24 states what happens if there is serious injury to the pregnant woman.

Sirhemlock also referred to Exodus 21.26, 27:

Quote:
"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.


This verses states that the master should be punished in the case of a serious injury, like the loss of an eye or a tooth.

So, what happens if a master strikes his slave but the slave doesn't die and doesn't loose an eye nor a tooth? Nothing. There is no punishment. And if there is no punishment for an action, that means that this action is allowed.

What is more evil? To gather sticks in the sabbath or to strike violently a slave?

If God presumably commands to stone a man because he was gathering sticks in the sabbath (Num 15.35), it is unexplainable that there is no clear punishment for striking a slave.

Apparently, God is not satisfied to condemn someone to death for gathering sticks. It should be death by stoning, a very cruel method of death execution.

If someone doubts that stoning is cruel, I suggest to watch this video of an actual execution by stoning accomplished by muslins: http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm





Reply with quote  #145 
Is it reasonable to believe in inerrancy despite old testament ethics? If you have this doubt like me, ask dr. Craig. I would like to know his answer. If a lot of people ask this question, maybe he will give an answer...
Reply with quote  #146 

WLC believes the bible, in its original text, is inerrant. He's justified atrocities in the OT by invoking God's providence. If that doesn't apply, then its our human misunderstanding of the texts at issue, not the inerrancy of the text.  It is precisely this view that I find WLC loses tremendous credibility, despite his brilliant mind. His a priori religious commitment to inerrancy, he has necessarily determined the consclusions of his philosophical and historical analyses.

Reply with quote  #147 
God is life's author and he can take life whenever he wants. But why a loving God would want to take someone's life through cruel methods like stoning or genocide?
Reply with quote  #148 
A good response?

I asked Dr. Matt Flannagan about the problem I raised in Numbers 15.35 and he answered the following:


Wagner, Numbers 15 does not clearly contradict my apologetics, and the position I put forward is not apologetics its actually defended by several leading OT scholars and scholars of ANE legal texts as I pointed out.

First, Exodus 21:27-29 and Numbers 35:30-31 quite clearly assume that a practice of substituting capital sentences for a monetary fine. They make no sense unless this is the case. ANE scholars tell us this was the general practice in ANE legal proceedings, and the laws did not function the way athiest critics assume, these are facts. I see you have not disputed or addressed these points.

Turning to the text you cite Numbers 15, this is actually compatible with what I said, the text in Numbers states.
“32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.”

This text does not deny that a general practise of ransoming occurs, in fact it seems to support it. In Exodus the Torah had already stated that a person who works on the Sabbath must be put to death, yet despite this it was unclear what to do with him. This suggests that they did not think the previous command to execute had to be literally carried out. TheyHebrews need an explicit command in this instance to justify the punishment. Only when God explicitly authorizes it for this case do they carry it out. This what I said in the text “the availability of ransom seems to have been so prevalent that when biblical law wants to exclude it, as in the case of intentional murder, it must specifically prohibit it.”

Its also worth noting the context of this command, the text has been talking about unintentional sins, it then states

”But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31′Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him. 32Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.”

So the Isrealites had just been warned to not defiantly disobey God and immediately afterward a person broke the known law, and gathered wood on the sabbath. So what this text states is that in a particular instance of out right defiant law breaking God required the death penalty to be literally carried out.

Three other points, Contrary to what you seem to imply gathering sticks for a fire in a camp is not a minor job if you have tried to build a fire to last all night in the freezing cold you’d know this. Moreover the context suggests deliberate defiance.

Second, you state stoning is cruel because its cruel as practiced today by some Islamic countries, but that assumes that the ancient Isreal practice was the same as modern Islamic one. I understand that Rabbinical sources contests this, they state that when a stoning occurred the person was usually thrown of a cliff first, they died and then were covered in stones.

Finally, I’ll note your method here, you state the text is not infallible because it goes against a moral judgment you make, which is apparently that deliberately defying God and violating his law is never serious enough to warrant the death penalty. But why assume that you judgment here is correct and the text is wrong, human moral judgments are fallible and its quite likely that if God issued commands they would conflict with some moral judgments humans make. Is not possible that deliberate defiance of God is more serious than you think?

If the objection is that God would never command something I believe is wrong, therefore this is not Gods word, then I suggest you have assumed apriori that you are such a wise person that God would never disagree with you. That seems to me to be mere hubris.

                                       



Reply with quote  #149 
Dr. Matt Flanagan stated that “when a stoning occurred the person was usually thrown of a cliff first, they died and then were covered in stones.”

But Numbers 15.36 doesn’t seem to give support to his thesis. Furthermore John 8 seems to contradict his thesis too.


Reply with quote  #150 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wagner
God is life's author and he can take life whenever he wants. But why a loving God would want to take someone's life through cruel methods like stoning or genocide?


God only ever gives life - just as the sun only ever gives light! The idea that God takes life is just as absurd as the sun giving darkness. Whoever or whatever tells you that God takes life is lying to you - just as if they were telling you that the sun gives darkness!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.