Quran Vs Bible

”Obey” is imperative. There is no honest way of interpreting “obey” as a simple recognition. And, as I have pointed out many times, what is the first mention of slavery in the Bible? God sentencing Canaan to slavery because his father “uncovered the nakedness” of his grandfather. This was right after God had wiped out every human off of the face of the earth except Noah’s family. God either invented slavery, or he reintroduced it after it had been eliminated – how much further from “recognizing” the institution could you possibly get?

No, minimum wage is not slavery. I don’t own my minimum wage employees as property. My minimum wage employees can leave any time they like, and it is not only legal for them to do so, it would be illegal for me to prevent them. I don’t own the children of my minimum wage employees. I can’t sell my daughter into a minimum wage contract, regardless of her will. I can’t beat my minimum wage employees nearly to death. I don’t go to war and capture civilian women and children as minimum wage employees.

I define slavery the same way the Bible does: owning another person as your personal property.

In the very least there could be a condemnation for the institution. Anywhere. God had no problem telling people to worship him, even when it could result in the same punishment as a slave revolt.

And practicing Christianity was safe? Obviously not. And if you read Ephesians 6, the reasoning is not for the protection of the slaves. It is the protection of the reputation of God and his religion.

I think you have mixed up your arguments.

The Bible says that all of the Old Testament laws and prophets fall into two categories: love for God and love for your neighbor. The laws commanded the death penalty for blasphemers and non-believers. Are you saying that this law was out of love for the victims?

 

.....................................Guess you didn't read my post.....

 

Study more:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1203&t=KJV

 

Yes. It convenient for you to pick that translation. I choose this one

1 Timothy 6 New International Version (NIV)

6 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.


Debating the bible is like playing pokemon

King James Version, I chose you!

Revised standard version, I chose you!

Batle!!

Do you see slaves an employee?

 

You missed my point completely.
I wasn't referring to christians, although, it has been argued correctly the laws are not yet abolished, but, I was referring to Jews and the Tanahk, OT. There is plenty of bad things one must do to please God.

 

Hmmm,...
Rome was filled with pagans worshiping false gods of their Roman Myth, though.
Gays we followers of Istar and Eros also.

What Jesus taught was that be telling the truth openly,in public, and to everyone who would listen, trut, itself, would change people.
All Rome became Christian in 380AD, and we saw Jesus reign for 1000 years without another church appearing as Universal Salvation was accomplished until the Renaissance marked the return of the seven headed beast again.

Martyrdom was experienced, but it worked and people changed.

 

Why? am I wrong?

Nooooooo

 

Roman Emperor Constantine chose the katholic faith because its heigharchy mirrored that of rome.He made following any other doctrine even other Christian doctrine punishable by crucifixion.

 

2) The Bible was reporting on the extinction of all mankind except for Modern Homo sapiens when Neanderthal man disappeared 40 millennium ago

This was a very important item in that God wants us to see Truth as the mediator to understand "Him," the eality which demands we obey his changes in the environment or likewise, become extinct.

1) The story about Ham is not as you understand it.

 

I'm operating under the assumption that it means what it says. It says that God created slavery. I understand that you have a rather unique interpretation. It is not one shared by myself or, to be perfectly honest, any Christian that I have ever met. There is no evidence that the Bible's authors ever meant to encode such a convoluted historical message, and certainly no evidence that they even knew what a Neanderthal was.

 

You answering your own question leads me to believe that you have positive knowledge that scholars over the centuries did not know. Care to provide the information that has you so convinced, or are the readers going to have to assume that you are just stating an OPINION?

 

You're the one who disagrees

Prove me wrong.

 

Yes I disagree, however you are the one who has declared emphatically that you are not wrong... which is a positive assertion. Now show your proof of claim. Or don't you have the gumption to defend your claim of knowing that you are not wrong?

 

Wrong,...
Constantine was not a christian until on his death bed.
All he did was stop the martyrdom of Christians that had been going on during 303-313AD.

And he called all christians together in 325AD to stop the arguments between the Homoiosians and the Homooiousians who differed on the essence of Christ.
It was Theo I in 380AD who formed the Universal Christian Church and made everyone join whether they liked it or not.

 

True today.
Min Wage does not require the person to sign up as if they were in the army, or like the Serfs did when they had no place else to live or earn daily bread.But then, as a land owner, during the Middle Ages in Europe, they would be like slaves to you who owned the land.

They had the choice.
They could just starve to death.
But they agreed to be Serfs instead.

These were slaves de facto, and all their family was included, too.

 

Wrong again.
The Bible specifically tells us abouyt the mass extinction which was coming.
That was why Noah built the "ark" as it was metaphorically called:

Gen 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man, (Neanderhals disappeared 40 millennium ago), whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

 

Your equation of voluntary minimum wage workers to slaves is as offensive as it is inaccurate. You act as if slaves could leave any time they wished, even if it did mean starvation (which wouldn't even necessarily be the case anyway). Instead, the Bible says that these people were the property of their owners. Any attempt to equate wages with actual slavery is simultaneously dishonest and callous.

The funny thing is that male Israelite slaves actually were allowed to seek freedom after a certain amount of time. Female slaves and foreign slaves had no such luxury. If your interpretation were true -- and it couldn't be any clearer that it is not -- any slave could leave slavery at any time they wished.

Let's stop pretending these things are equivocal. I'm not buying it, and I doubt you do either.

 

The Bible never clarifies any of this as a metaphor, and warning a single person about a mass extinction that would take place over thousands of years is ridiculous. Did the Neanderthals just stand around while the flood waters took a few thousand years to drown them?

Neanderthals were not the only "man" who existed at the time. Neanderthals existed contemporaneously with homo sapien sapien. You are losing the point. We were talking about the origins of slavery in the Bible. Even if we bend over backwards and say that Noah's family represented the surviving homo sapien sapines, we are still faced with the exact same problem. Even under your interpretation, Neanderthals were wiped out at this point. The verses I brought up have nothing to do with them.

 

Its just Economics.

It sounds terrible to pretend Slavery when necessary to exist become a way people can eat and find board when they have no other choice is just a circumstance of Reality.
You probably don't think about the fact that in 1776 there was no American money in the USA.
People did not need moneym because every farm was self sufficient.
Some trading took place, of course.
And some British money was used inside the towns, too.

But farmers self supported themselves and their families.
Many a worker traded his time for room and board then, and worked on the basis they could do things to serve the farmer.
Many if not most immigrants for Europe arranged to be slaves for a limited duration in order to get a start in America.

And serfdom was world wide too:
"According to Joseph R. Strayer, the concept of feudalism can also be applied to the societies of ancient Persia, ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt (Sixth to Twelfth dynasty), Muslim India, China (Zhou Dynasty, and end of Han Dynasty) and Japan during the Shogunate. James Lee and Cameron Campbell describe the Chinese Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) as also maintaining a form of serfdom.[3]"

 

You just aren't thinking about the story correctly.
Only Noah who was a species, not a man, because no man lived 950 "years."
The Hebrew word used actually means and Age, even a millennium.
But it also can mean a year.
The readers had no idea that God meant millennium.

Yes.
The end of Neanderthal began 40,000 years ago, and during those years they all disappeared, leaving just 3 racial stocks of Modern man who were also living on earth.
The whole genealogy in Genesis is about evolution and it parallels exactly what science also says about 22 species before modern man appeared:

 

If that were true, every society would have had slavery. Good luck proving that.

Then prove that every society practiced slavery.

I have thought of it, and you are completely wrong. Monetary notes did exist in 1776, not every farm was self sufficient, and (of course) not everyone was a farmer.

. . . I don't know if I have seen a greater understatement in any historical discussion. Of course trade took place. There is no reason to belive it was rare.

And farmers traded among themselves, because absolute self-sufficiency is an extraordinary waste of energy and resources. Say hello to comparative advantage.

Which is fine. It is also not the same thing as slavery.

And then that same "most" freed their slaves? You honestly believe that?

I noticed that your citation does not include the entire world, and that it fails to distinguish between serfdom and slavery.

 

I'm tempted to challenge you on this -- and, no, I don't accept your rewriting of Genesis -- but it doesn't matter. Everything I'm talking about took place AFTER the flood.

 

Neither was I, so not sure of your point

Revealing that in a discussion of the "Quran Vs Bible", you want to limit it to the "Jews and the Tanahk"

 

Actually I did. Did you have a point you wanted to make or just the need to respond?

 

Then why keep quoting the bible when talking about jews?
You are the one who keeps bringing up the jews. As if Jesus' very own words only apply to them. You have been shown wrong by a few different people.
So I guess we can end it here.