Was slavery condemned in the Bible?

[OldLady]

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

This focus is too narrow. First, Biblical slavery (versus Nineteenth Century Slavery) came about as solutions to security and indebtedness. What to do with the conquered people--kill them outright, drive them into the desert for a slow death, put them to work for their conquerors. Second, put someone in prison until the debt was paid off, or allow the debtor to offer himself as collateral until the debt was repaid? In this we see that Biblical slavery had--in its roots--good intentions. And, as with anything else that starts with good intentions, not so ethical people found ways to abuse it. Slavery became an economic reality in Biblical times. Yet, because of other Biblical laws by the time of Jesus, slaves in the Jewish culture had become rare indeed.

Compare it to abortion in our own time. There are those of us who are repulsed by the idea at all, yet at the same time we support laws that prohibit abortion from occurring say late in the pregnancy. This is not telling people how to get an abortion (just like the Biblical law was not telling people to beat their slaves) but an attempt to reign in abuse that was already occurring in society.

Clearly, slavery was already embedded in society by the time the Bible was written. How does God deal with what is? We can see that other of God's laws ate away at owning other people. It did not happen overnight, yet it did happen...through the Laws of God.

I'm going to take the focus off of the equivocation going on over what types of slavery there were and why - because there is a LOT of scholarship on that that firmly DISAGREES with what you had just written - - indebted slavery DID exist in the Ancient nearest but it was NOT the only kind - and it's NOT, also, the only kind the Bible is referring to and it CERTAINLY doesn't dismiss the allowance of selling CHILDREN into servitude...

Let's ignore all of that for a few moments and focus on some finer point here, that seems to be being missed:

The point is, is that if the Old Testament Slavery Laws were the inspired words of God - this eliminates any excuse whatsoever for condoning its occurrence and it also entails Religious Moral Relativism, as opposed to Objective Morality as grounded in said God's nature.

THAT'S the point, and it doesn't even need to be argued the varying degrees of severity of owning human slaves. Those things are an aside, but can in-fact, be argued.

I posted the video of a PhD in Ancient Near Eastern Culture who summarizes what's going on in regards to that aside. Slavery, yes in that form, was hideous. No two ways about it.

G.T., the Bible is full of books that aren't "the inspired words of God." They're lists of begats and stories from ancient history and love poetry and letters written by disciples, etc. etc.
The "inspired words of God," like the 10 commandments and the instructions on building the Temple in Jerusalem, and the promise to Moses that the people would possess Canaan...those are clearly stated as words of God.
A lot of the Bible is describing their world at the time, and to expect individual human rights to be championed would be an anachronism.

I was never confused about that, but thank ya.

It's irrelevant to this topic, too...since Levitical Law is said to be the Law given BY GOD, to Moses.

Oh. So you're only quoting and arguing from Leviticus. Okay.

 

[rightwinger]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

God never considered slavery a sin

After Moses freed the slaves of Egypt and led them across the desert, God never made condemning slavery one of his Ten Commandments

Covering was more important

 

[G.T.]

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

This focus is too narrow. First, Biblical slavery (versus Nineteenth Century Slavery) came about as solutions to security and indebtedness. What to do with the conquered people--kill them outright, drive them into the desert for a slow death, put them to work for their conquerors. Second, put someone in prison until the debt was paid off, or allow the debtor to offer himself as collateral until the debt was repaid? In this we see that Biblical slavery had--in its roots--good intentions. And, as with anything else that starts with good intentions, not so ethical people found ways to abuse it. Slavery became an economic reality in Biblical times. Yet, because of other Biblical laws by the time of Jesus, slaves in the Jewish culture had become rare indeed.

Compare it to abortion in our own time. There are those of us who are repulsed by the idea at all, yet at the same time we support laws that prohibit abortion from occurring say late in the pregnancy. This is not telling people how to get an abortion (just like the Biblical law was not telling people to beat their slaves) but an attempt to reign in abuse that was already occurring in society.

Clearly, slavery was already embedded in society by the time the Bible was written. How does God deal with what is? We can see that other of God's laws ate away at owning other people. It did not happen overnight, yet it did happen...through the Laws of God.

I'm going to take the focus off of the equivocation going on over what types of slavery there were and why - because there is a LOT of scholarship on that that firmly DISAGREES with what you had just written - - indebted slavery DID exist in the Ancient nearest but it was NOT the only kind - and it's NOT, also, the only kind the Bible is referring to and it CERTAINLY doesn't dismiss the allowance of selling CHILDREN into servitude...

Let's ignore all of that for a few moments and focus on some finer point here, that seems to be being missed:

The point is, is that if the Old Testament Slavery Laws were the inspired words of God - this eliminates any excuse whatsoever for condoning its occurrence and it also entails Religious Moral Relativism, as opposed to Objective Morality as grounded in said God's nature.

THAT'S the point, and it doesn't even need to be argued the varying degrees of severity of owning human slaves. Those things are an aside, but can in-fact, be argued.

I posted the video of a PhD in Ancient Near Eastern Culture who summarizes what's going on in regards to that aside. Slavery, yes in that form, was hideous. No two ways about it.

G.T., the Bible is full of books that aren't "the inspired words of God." They're lists of begats and stories from ancient history and love poetry and letters written by disciples, etc. etc.
The "inspired words of God," like the 10 commandments and the instructions on building the Temple in Jerusalem, and the promise to Moses that the people would possess Canaan...those are clearly stated as words of God.
A lot of the Bible is describing their world at the time, and to expect individual human rights to be championed would be an anachronism.

I was never confused about that, but thank ya.

It's irrelevant to this topic, too...since Levitical Law is said to be the Law given BY GOD, to Moses.

Oh. So you're only quoting and arguing from Leviticus. Okay.

We're talking about whether or not God condoned Slavery, as far as I knew.

It's in Leviticus where he codified it into Law.

 

[anynameyouwish]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Slavery in the Bible - RationalWiki

"Slavery in the Old Testament
Overview

The Bible identifies different categories of slaves including female Hebrew slaves, male Hebrew slaves, non-Hebrew and hereditary slaves. These were subject to different regulations.

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life (Exodus 21:7-11), but there were some limits to this.

Male Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery for a six-year period to eliminate their debts, after which they might go free. However, if the male slave had been given a wife and had children with her, they would remain his master's property. They could only stay with their family by becoming permanent slaves (Exodus 21:2-5). Evangelical Christians, especially those who subscribe to Biblical inerrancy, will commonly emphasize this debt bondage and try to minimize the other forms of race-based chattel slavery when attempting to excuse the Bible for endorsing slavery.[citation needed]

Non-Hebrews, on the other hand, could (according to Leviticus 25:44) be subjected to slavery in exactly the way that it is usually understood. The slaves could be bought, sold and inherited when their owner died. This, by any standard, is race- or ethnicity-based, and Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. It does say that simply kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is a crime punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such prohibition exists regarding foreigners. War captives could be made slaves, assuming they had refused to make peace (this applied to women and children — men were simply killed), along with the seizure of all their property (Deuteronomy 20:10-15).

Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and there is no apparent way by which they could obtain their freedom.

So the Bible endorses various types of slavery, see below — though Biblical literalists only want to talk about one version and claim that it wasn't really so bad. "

 

[Porter Rockwell]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

I have found nothing that suggests the practice is immoral or "wrong." We still maintain the master / servant relationship.

The haves automatically have credibility. If I try to endorse a product, who are you going to believe... me or Alex Trebeck? BTW, whole life is a rip-off FWIW.

The haves work the have nots for a mere pittance; get to dictate to the have nots and the only substantive difference is that the have nots can go home at night. We don't have any Rights, but we do have equal Rights with all, except those that we don't even know because the corporate bureaucracy hides the slave masters.

The corporate bureaucracy can't sell your children or legally rape your wife or forbid you to learn how to read or forbid you to vote, though. You have the freedom to try and become a rich corporate bureaucrat yourself. So cheer up.

That is very funny. It's only true if you want to work within THEIR structure.

For example:

The right complains about the controlled MSM. But, we have Fox News, right? The major stockholders of Fox are Rupert Murdoch (who use to sit - and still may) on the Board of Directors for the Council on Foreign Relations along with the next biggest investor, who is a Saudi Prince. Do you really think THOSE people are going to allow you to present the news so that people end up voting for constitutionalists OR anyone that would save this country?

The media tells people what they want to hear and both sides are going to the same destination via different routes. They own us lock, stock and barrel. They have left you with the illusion that you're choosing as a matter of free will.

 

[presonorek]

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood is guiltiness upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 NASB

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:13 NIV

If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.

Leviticus 20:13 The Message

If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guilt shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 MEV

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 ESV


If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 KJV


If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 NKJV

There are illiterate people who keep arguing that those verses don't say what they say. What is surely be put to death? Seems simple enough to me.

It means if a male has sexual intercourse with another male then he should be killed by some method. The methodology is not specified. Some people in African/Middle Eastern countries are still sentenced to death for male on male sexuality.

It is extremely realistic for an ancient culture from that same geographic area to have those same customs. I am pretty sure they killed at least some male homosexuals in ancient Israel. For the life of me I cannot understand why any sane literate human would think otherwise. It makes me want to use the liar liar pants on fire argument. This verse is abundantly clear both from a literary and historical perspective.

I may be wrong----but somewhere along the line you seem to have STYLED
yourself a "scholar of the bible" -----<<<<<watta joke

Do you have this verse figured all out? Contrary to what others believe on this forum, I am not a Bible scholar. You got a hold of some bad information on that one. What do you think Leviticus 20:13 was intended to mean to the Israelites?

 

[irosie91]

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood is guiltiness upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 NASB

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:13 NIV

If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.

Leviticus 20:13 The Message

If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guilt shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 MEV

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 ESV


If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 KJV


If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 NKJV

There are illiterate people who keep arguing that those verses don't say what they say. What is surely be put to death? Seems simple enough to me.

It means if a male has sexual intercourse with another male then he should be killed by some method. The methodology is not specified. Some people in African/Middle Eastern countries are still sentenced to death for male on male sexuality.

It is extremely realistic for an ancient culture from that same geographic area to have those same customs. I am pretty sure they killed at least some male homosexuals in ancient Israel. For the life of me I cannot understand why any sane literate human would think otherwise. It makes me want to use the liar liar pants on fire argument. This verse is abundantly clear both from a literary and historical perspective.

I may be wrong----but somewhere along the line you seem to have STYLED
yourself a "scholar of the bible" -----<<<<<watta joke

Do you have this verse figured all out? Contrary to what others believe on this forum, I am not a Bible scholar. You got a hold of some bad information on that one. What do you think Leviticus 20:13 was intended to mean to the Israelites?

I cannot discuss "INTENT" ---but can approach aspects of interpretation as
popularly done by Pharisees like Jesus. The execution would be limited to
persons who PROMULGATE and MAKE PROFITABLE and CULT-LIKE
BEHAVIOR ----acts of homosexuality. Setting up a SODOMIZERS BOOTH---
in the Temple courtyard would be a capital crime. Getting involved in Roman and
Sadducean business corruption was also a CRIME for the Pharisees See the NT ......in several of its books

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood is guiltiness upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 NASB

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:13 NIV

If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.

Leviticus 20:13 The Message

If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guilt shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 MEV

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 ESV


If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 KJV


If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 NKJV

There are illiterate people who keep arguing that those verses don't say what they say. What is surely be put to death? Seems simple enough to me.

It means if a male has sexual intercourse with another male then he should be killed by some method. The methodology is not specified. Some people in African/Middle Eastern countries are still sentenced to death for male on male sexuality.

It is extremely realistic for an ancient culture from that same geographic area to have those same customs. I am pretty sure they killed at least some male homosexuals in ancient Israel. For the life of me I cannot understand why any sane literate human would think otherwise. It makes me want to use the liar liar pants on fire argument. This verse is abundantly clear both from a literary and historical perspective.

I may be wrong----but somewhere along the line you seem to have STYLED
yourself a "scholar of the bible" -----<<<<<watta joke

Do you have this verse figured all out? Contrary to what others believe on this forum, I am not a Bible scholar. You got a hold of some bad information on that one. What do you think Leviticus 20:13 was intended to mean to the Israelites?

I cannot discuss "INTENT" ---but can approach aspects of interpretation as
popularly done by Pharisees like Jesus. The execution would be limited to
persons who PROMULGATE and MAKE PROFITABLE and CULT-LIKE
BEHAVIOR ----acts of homosexuality. Setting up a SODOMIZERS BOOTH---
in the Temple courtyard would be a capital crime. Getting involved in Roman and
Sadducean business corruption was also a CRIME for the Pharisees See the NT ......in several of its books

You are getting some bad info.

 

[presonorek]

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood is guiltiness upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 NASB

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:13 NIV

If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.

Leviticus 20:13 The Message

If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guilt shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 MEV

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 ESV


If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 KJV


If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 NKJV

There are illiterate people who keep arguing that those verses don't say what they say. What is surely be put to death? Seems simple enough to me.

It means if a male has sexual intercourse with another male then he should be killed by some method. The methodology is not specified. Some people in African/Middle Eastern countries are still sentenced to death for male on male sexuality.

It is extremely realistic for an ancient culture from that same geographic area to have those same customs. I am pretty sure they killed at least some male homosexuals in ancient Israel. For the life of me I cannot understand why any sane literate human would think otherwise. It makes me want to use the liar liar pants on fire argument. This verse is abundantly clear both from a literary and historical perspective.

I may be wrong----but somewhere along the line you seem to have STYLED
yourself a "scholar of the bible" -----<<<<<watta joke

Do you have this verse figured all out? Contrary to what others believe on this forum, I am not a Bible scholar. You got a hold of some bad information on that one. What do you think Leviticus 20:13 was intended to mean to the Israelites?

I cannot discuss "INTENT" ---but can approach aspects of interpretation as
popularly done by Pharisees like Jesus. The execution would be limited to
persons who PROMULGATE and MAKE PROFITABLE and CULT-LIKE
BEHAVIOR ----acts of homosexuality. Setting up a SODOMIZERS BOOTH---
in the Temple courtyard would be a capital crime. Getting involved in Roman and
Sadducean business corruption was also a CRIME for the Pharisees See the NT ......in several of its books

You are very good at reading the Bible. I would avoid that extra Biblical nonsensense though. You aren't the first person to use this explanation. It has no Biblical foundation whatsoever. It doesn't even sound scholarly.

 

[ding]

Cock smoking wasn't illegal back then, the greeks were doing worse to children.

Free will is a bitch.

God set the pace by raping Mary.

taz-----be not vulgar

God wanted to get his small dick in there before Joseph busted her up with his big shlong.

Mary was out partying while Joseph was asleep and then she made up some fantastical story?

That’s his momma you are talking about. You might want to hedge your bet by not bad mouthing his momma.

After all he did turn water into wine before it was his time to begin his ministry do to nothing more than a passing comment from his momma.

 

[G.T.]

Free will is a bitch.

God set the pace by raping Mary.

taz-----be not vulgar

God wanted to get his small dick in there before Joseph busted her up with his big shlong.

Mary was out partying while Joseph was asleep and then she made up some fantastical story?

That’s his momma you are talking about. You might want to hedge your bet by not bad mouthing his momma.

After all he did turn water into wine before it was his time to begin his ministry do to nothing more than a passing comment from his momma.

I rest easy making churlish jokes about biblical characters same as I would about Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse or Spiderman. Plus, Mary was prolly hott after God make her Bush burn off...and could probably barely help himself.

 

[irosie91]

There are illiterate people who keep arguing that those verses don't say what they say. What is surely be put to death? Seems simple enough to me.

It means if a male has sexual intercourse with another male then he should be killed by some method. The methodology is not specified. Some people in African/Middle Eastern countries are still sentenced to death for male on male sexuality.

It is extremely realistic for an ancient culture from that same geographic area to have those same customs. I am pretty sure they killed at least some male homosexuals in ancient Israel. For the life of me I cannot understand why any sane literate human would think otherwise. It makes me want to use the liar liar pants on fire argument. This verse is abundantly clear both from a literary and historical perspective.

I may be wrong----but somewhere along the line you seem to have STYLED
yourself a "scholar of the bible" -----<<<<<watta joke

Do you have this verse figured all out? Contrary to what others believe on this forum, I am not a Bible scholar. You got a hold of some bad information on that one. What do you think Leviticus 20:13 was intended to mean to the Israelites?

I cannot discuss "INTENT" ---but can approach aspects of interpretation as
popularly done by Pharisees like Jesus. The execution would be limited to
persons who PROMULGATE and MAKE PROFITABLE and CULT-LIKE
BEHAVIOR ----acts of homosexuality. Setting up a SODOMIZERS BOOTH---
in the Temple courtyard would be a capital crime. Getting involved in Roman and
Sadducean business corruption was also a CRIME for the Pharisees See the NT ......in several of its books

You are getting some bad info.

really? from where? I read the OT and the NT ----and parts of the talmud

 

[irosie91]

There are illiterate people who keep arguing that those verses don't say what they say. What is surely be put to death? Seems simple enough to me.

It means if a male has sexual intercourse with another male then he should be killed by some method. The methodology is not specified. Some people in African/Middle Eastern countries are still sentenced to death for male on male sexuality.

It is extremely realistic for an ancient culture from that same geographic area to have those same customs. I am pretty sure they killed at least some male homosexuals in ancient Israel. For the life of me I cannot understand why any sane literate human would think otherwise. It makes me want to use the liar liar pants on fire argument. This verse is abundantly clear both from a literary and historical perspective.

I may be wrong----but somewhere along the line you seem to have STYLED
yourself a "scholar of the bible" -----<<<<<watta joke

Do you have this verse figured all out? Contrary to what others believe on this forum, I am not a Bible scholar. You got a hold of some bad information on that one. What do you think Leviticus 20:13 was intended to mean to the Israelites?

I cannot discuss "INTENT" ---but can approach aspects of interpretation as
popularly done by Pharisees like Jesus. The execution would be limited to
persons who PROMULGATE and MAKE PROFITABLE and CULT-LIKE
BEHAVIOR ----acts of homosexuality. Setting up a SODOMIZERS BOOTH---
in the Temple courtyard would be a capital crime. Getting involved in Roman and
Sadducean business corruption was also a CRIME for the Pharisees See the NT ......in several of its books

You are very good at reading the Bible. I would avoid that extra Biblical nonsensense though. You aren't the first person to use this explanation. It has no Biblical foundation whatsoever. It doesn't even sound scholarly.

the only people who are "good" at reading the bible are those who have some
knowledge of the languages thereof. -----and those who understand the
interpretations thereof who are closest to the those who produced it.-------not some
"person" who depends on a translation that happened thousands of years later.
I cannot read BEUWULF with much clear understanding any better than you read
the bible

 

[presonorek]

It means if a male has sexual intercourse with another male then he should be killed by some method. The methodology is not specified. Some people in African/Middle Eastern countries are still sentenced to death for male on male sexuality.

It is extremely realistic for an ancient culture from that same geographic area to have those same customs. I am pretty sure they killed at least some male homosexuals in ancient Israel. For the life of me I cannot understand why any sane literate human would think otherwise. It makes me want to use the liar liar pants on fire argument. This verse is abundantly clear both from a literary and historical perspective.

I may be wrong----but somewhere along the line you seem to have STYLED
yourself a "scholar of the bible" -----<<<<<watta joke

Do you have this verse figured all out? Contrary to what others believe on this forum, I am not a Bible scholar. You got a hold of some bad information on that one. What do you think Leviticus 20:13 was intended to mean to the Israelites?

I cannot discuss "INTENT" ---but can approach aspects of interpretation as
popularly done by Pharisees like Jesus. The execution would be limited to
persons who PROMULGATE and MAKE PROFITABLE and CULT-LIKE
BEHAVIOR ----acts of homosexuality. Setting up a SODOMIZERS BOOTH---
in the Temple courtyard would be a capital crime. Getting involved in Roman and
Sadducean business corruption was also a CRIME for the Pharisees See the NT ......in several of its books

You are getting some bad info.

really? from where? I read the OT and the NT ----and parts of the talmud

Where did you purchase an English translation of the Talmud? It is my understanding that this is an informal body of work written in Aramaic by Rabbis through the ages that isn't formally canonized. It is supposedly bigger than a collection of encyclopedias. When you say Talmud, can you specify so others can read it too?

 

[irosie91]

I may be wrong----but somewhere along the line you seem to have STYLED
yourself a "scholar of the bible" -----<<<<<watta joke

Do you have this verse figured all out? Contrary to what others believe on this forum, I am not a Bible scholar. You got a hold of some bad information on that one. What do you think Leviticus 20:13 was intended to mean to the Israelites?

I cannot discuss "INTENT" ---but can approach aspects of interpretation as
popularly done by Pharisees like Jesus. The execution would be limited to
persons who PROMULGATE and MAKE PROFITABLE and CULT-LIKE
BEHAVIOR ----acts of homosexuality. Setting up a SODOMIZERS BOOTH---
in the Temple courtyard would be a capital crime. Getting involved in Roman and
Sadducean business corruption was also a CRIME for the Pharisees See the NT ......in several of its books

You are getting some bad info.

really? from where? I read the OT and the NT ----and parts of the talmud

Where did you purchase an English translation of the Talmud? It is my understanding that this is an informal body of work written in Aramaic by Rabbis through the ages that isn't formally canonized. It is supposedly bigger than a collection of encyclopedias. When you say Talmud, can you specify so others can read it too?

Very lately there have been actual credible translations of the Talmud into English ---sold at "jewish bookstores" usually titled "SEFORIM" ----there is nothing
"informal" about the Talmud-------it is just about as precise and scholarly as any work ever done IN DA UNIVERSE---only recently in translation. "FORMALLY CANONIZED" ???? I don't understand what that means-----BY DA POPE?

 

[presonorek]

"FORMALLY CANONIZED" ???? I don't understand what that means-----BY DA POPE?

What prevents the Jewish community and us from arguing over what is Talmud and what is not Talmud?

 

[irosie91]

"FORMALLY CANONIZED" ???? I don't understand what that means-----BY DA POPE?

What prevents the Jewish community and us from arguing over what is Talmud and what is not Talmud?

nothing-----go read----try not to INVENT

 

[harmonica]

you can interpret the bible a million ways

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I may be wrong----but somewhere along the line you seem to have STYLED
yourself a "scholar of the bible" -----<<<<<watta joke

Do you have this verse figured all out? Contrary to what others believe on this forum, I am not a Bible scholar. You got a hold of some bad information on that one. What do you think Leviticus 20:13 was intended to mean to the Israelites?

I cannot discuss "INTENT" ---but can approach aspects of interpretation as
popularly done by Pharisees like Jesus. The execution would be limited to
persons who PROMULGATE and MAKE PROFITABLE and CULT-LIKE
BEHAVIOR ----acts of homosexuality. Setting up a SODOMIZERS BOOTH---
in the Temple courtyard would be a capital crime. Getting involved in Roman and
Sadducean business corruption was also a CRIME for the Pharisees See the NT ......in several of its books

You are getting some bad info.

really? from where? I read the OT and the NT ----and parts of the talmud

Where did you purchase an English translation of the Talmud? It is my understanding that this is an informal body of work written in Aramaic by Rabbis through the ages that isn't formally canonized. It is supposedly bigger than a collection of encyclopedias. When you say Talmud, can you specify so others can read it too?

Commentaries and abridged volumes aren't very accurate - and they would be irrelevant to boot.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

you can interpret the bible a million ways

Then let the Bible interpret the Bible.