Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Cactus Wren]

I am pretty sure there were something about marking ones servants with an aul. (Some kind of earring)

Exodus 21: that's the part where God explains that you can only keep a (male) slave (of your own people) for seven years -- but if you want to keep him forever, no problem, just hold his wife and kids hostage against him. (Women slaves weren't subject to the seven-year limit.)

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

 

[six7s]

Well, if you decide to reference the JEfferson bible, be sure to add an asterisk next to it and say, "*Jefferson felt the original bible needed revising as he likened it to a dung heap."

This is the same Jefferson that is attributed as saying "The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust", right?

Either way, as DOC (the A-grade student of logic) knows, (mis)quoting Jefferson is merely a fallacious 'appeal to authority'

@OP:

Got any evidence yet?

And if you decide to reference Sir Ramsay's opinion

Gaaaaah! And a thousand times Gaaaaah!!11!!

It's Sir William

Or Sir William Ramsay

Or Ramsay

NOT Sir Ramsay

 

[tsig]

Posted by DOC

Then who created the 900 verses Thomas Jefferson cut out of the bible and said were the most moral and sublime teaching ever preached to humanity -- liars and charlatans?


It is not a argument from authority, because I am not saying the bible is true because Thomas Jefferson cut out 900 verses. In fact it is more of a question than it is an argument.

Yes they were, most of what Jefferson liked was stolen from the OT.

Besides Jefferson was wrong.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Gaaaaah! And a thousand times Gaaaaah!!11!!

It's Sir William

Or Sir William Ramsay

Or Ramsay

NOT Sir Ramsay

I think Joobz was quoting doc's original mistitling of Sir William.

 

[Toke]

Exodus 21: that's the part where God explains that you can only keep a (male) slave (of your own people) for seven years -- but if you want to keep him forever, no problem, just hold his wife and kids hostage against him. (Women slaves weren't subject to the seven-year limit.)

Thanks, my bible knowledge is limited, but I were certain that the treatment of "servants" were more fitting for slaves.

And it would get you in trouble nowadays.

 

[Astreja]

Well then if you decide to use the word slave than to be honest just put an asterisk next it and say *(9 translations use the word servant not slave)

DOC, the problem is not whether the Bible author meant 'servant' versus 'slave.'

The problem is that the Bible says that it's okay to beat them.

 

[six7s]

I think Joobz was quoting doc's original mistitling of Sir William.

I like to think so, too

 

[Lothian]

DOC, the problem is not whether the Bible author meant 'servant' versus 'slave.'

The problem is that the Bible says that it's okay to beat them.

I am wondering how this lesson is relevant today when, servants are not so common. I presume that Jesus was simply responding to and writing for the social structure at the time.

That social structure is now outdated. If he was here today the message would be very different. He would have said "That employee who knows his employer's will and does not get ready or does not do what his employer wants will be beaten with many blows. "

 

[Fitter]

I am wondering how this lesson is relevant today when, servants are not so common. I presume that Jesus was simply responding to and writing for the social structure at the time.

That social structure is now outdated. If he was here today the message would be very different. He would have said "That employee who knows his employer's will and does not get ready or does not do what his employer wants will be beaten with many blows. "

Well that's one translation, 8 more like that and we have a new standard.

 

[six7s]

Well that's one translation, 8 more like that and we have a new standard.

Teh Bad Kitteh!
⁴¹ Peter ax, "Jebus, wtf? R u talking to lolcats or to all ppl?"

⁴² Jebus sed, "Boss cat givz deputeh kitteh cheezburgrs 2 shaer wit evrybody and goed away.⁴³ "If him coem hoem an seed deputeh kitteh dun gud job, him rly happi.⁴⁴ Den him sai 'DEPUTEH KITTEH GETS ALL MAH CHEEZBURGERS!'"

⁴⁵ "But if deputeh kitteh sez 'Boss cat not heer, me eat all his cheezburgerz an not shaer,' and eated them, and then kitteh rollz all in catnip,⁴⁶ "Boss cat goes 'SURPRIZ!!!!! IZ HOEM EARLY!!!! BAD KITTEH!!!!!11!! U GIT SKWRT BOTTEL!!!!'"

⁴⁷ "Teh kitteh who noes not to eated all cheezburgerz and eated all cheezburgers git sprayd lots an lots wit skwrt bottel. Srsly!⁴⁸ Kitteh who not noes not to eated all cheezburgers and eated all cheezburgers gits sprayd littel bit wit skwrt bottel. Kitteh who gots many cheezburgerz, gets axed lots, an from kitteh who gots much trusted, much more axed too, lol."​

 

[tsig]

I am wondering how this lesson is relevant today when, servants are not so common. I presume that Jesus was simply responding to and writing for the social structure at the time.

That social structure is now outdated. If he was here today the message would be very different. He would have said "That employee who knows his employer's will and does not get ready or does not do what his employer wants will be beaten with many blows. "

Notice to all employees:

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

The Management.

 

[laca]

notice to all employees:

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

The management.

ftfy

 

[X]

DOC! Stop dodging the issue!

3) Why do you harp on about the slaves/servants issue? Does the word make a difference in the point Joobz is asking you to address? Perhaps you consider it morally acceptable to beat servants, but not slaves. If that is the case, just say so. If not, and it is immoral to beat servants/slaves, then Joobz's point stands, regardless of which translation he uses. Face it, DOC, your obsession with the issue is a dodge, and you know it.

In the Old Testament God gave people ample opportunity to repent and change. When God saw there was no hope for certain people He did what He did. I'm not sure what particular verse you are talking about. A perfect God will always make perfect actions. God gave humanity free will and that includes the freedom to sin and reject God and receive punishment if you choose. If children are killed it was probably because God knew there was no hope for that child in the sinful environment they were in. The bible says God is just. A just God would not send those children to hell.

You are actually defending the killing of children!
That is one of the most vile and disgusting things I've ever seen from you, DOC.

Seriously, stop going down this side-track. It isn't making you look good.

Go back to the main message here: evidence for why the New Testament writers told the truth.

 

[Paulhoff]

The bible says God is just. A just God would not send those children to hell.

You should find a new god, that so-called god you have is a little childish one.

What is way more childish is you defending it.

Paul

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm in favor of doing anything God/Christ would approve of.

Source:

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2​

 

[six7s]

You should find invent a new god, that so-called god you have is a little childish one.

FTFY

²⁶And men said, Let us make a god in our image, after our likeness: and then we shallt have dominioneth over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

²⁷So men created a god in their own image, in the image of men created they it; male they created them it.

²⁸And men over-eggethed the custard abit and said unto themselves shag everything that moveths and pillage the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

²⁹And men said, Behold, we have commandeered every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to us it shall be for meat.

³⁰And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, we have commandeered every green herb for meat: and it was so.

³¹And men saw every thing that they had commandeered, and, behold, it was rather terrific! And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.​

2

¹Thus the the first chapter of the myth were finished, even if it didn't make much sense

²And on the seventh day men woke up with a humongous hangover; and have been shaking their heads ever since​

 

[Helen]

Well then if you decide to use the word slave than to be honest just put an asterisk next it and say *(9 translations use the word servant not slave)

This is not a good argument. 9 translations out of how many thousands? And you know, DOC, even if ALL translations used servant instead of slave, it still wouldn't be a good argument. If you wish to base your argument on a translation, there are several difficulties you need to take into account.

1. Bible translations have very rarely been completely new translations (this is more or less true of all translations of texts that have been previously translated). They build on the older translations, and therfore run the risk of importing mistakes from those.
2. Bible translations are commissioned for a reason. The motives of those comissioning it, and the translators, may colour the translation, one way or the other.
3. Translations of archaic texts are always adapted to suit the audience. They must be, to be understood.
4. Translation is not an exact science, quite the opposite, in fact. if you translate a text that originated in a culture similar to your own, it's easier, but the translation will still not be exact. If the culture is different, then the difficulties are greater. If you are translating from a language that no one speaks any longer, at least in the form of the text, the difficulties become extreme.
5. A translation that might have been considered good a few hundred years ago, may not be acceptable today. We live and learn. Even translators...

There may be even more objections to basing your argument on translations, I've only listed the more obvius ones.

The strongest objection, however, is this: You cannot determine the meaning of a word from a translation. If you need to make sure exactly what is meant, you must look at the original word. The translation is an approximation, at best. In this case, the word used in the original is doulos. That's what you have to work with, not your 9 translations. if you can find good reasons to suggest that doulos does mean servant, and not slave or bondservant, which most experts seem to agree on, then perhaps you may have a better argument.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well then if you decide to use the word slave than to be honest just put an asterisk next it and say *(9 translations use the word servant not slave)

This is not a good argument.

No, it's not. It's one of these:

 

[Helen]

There I was, wasting all these words

 

[Belz...]

I'm in favor of doing anything God/Christ would approve of.

No matter what this would be ?

That's why I can't be in the military. I have an issue with following orders blindly.