SD on 10/12/2007 at 07:27
Quote Posted by jtr7
It's not a condoning of slavery
Of course not! Telling masters that they should only beat their slaves lightly, and telling slaves that they should strive to be like their master is obviously a veiled
condemnation of slavery!
@fett: I'm more than aware that the literal translation of slave/servant in this context is bondservant ie a slave that is bonded to their master. I see no real difference between serfdom and slavery, but thanks for the patronising "I studied this worthless shit for most of my life" lecture.
jtr7 on 10/12/2007 at 08:17
Quote:
Of course not! Telling masters that they should only beat their slaves lightly, and telling slaves that they should strive to be like their master is obviously a veiled condemnation of slavery!
Yow. Could you demonstrate how this is the intent of the text, and not a failing on the part of the reader?
I mean, most people misunderstand another's writings, texts, letters, posts, etc., quite often. How is anybody right? How many people STUDY the bible with the mindset that they are probably wrong and with a desire to correct themselves?
Spaztick on 10/12/2007 at 08:50
Quote Posted by SD
Of course not! Telling masters that they should only beat their slaves lightly, and telling slaves that they should strive to be like their master is obviously a veiled
condemnation of slavery!
@fett: I'm more than aware that the literal translation of slave/servant in this context is bondservant ie a slave that is bonded to their master. I see no real difference between serfdom and slavery, but thanks for the patronising "I studied this worthless shit for most of my life" lecture.
So because you interpreted it something differently it's wrong?
fett on 10/12/2007 at 14:21
Quote Posted by SD
Of course not! Telling masters that they should only beat their slaves lightly, and telling slaves that they should strive to be like their master is obviously a veiled
condemnation of slavery!
@fett: I'm more than aware that the literal translation of slave/servant in this context is bondservant ie a slave that is bonded to their master. I see no real difference between serfdom and slavery, but thanks for the patronising "I studied this worthless shit for most of my life" lecture.
Beating refers to punishment dumbass, not beating with a whip. Again, you lose points for jumping to Alex Haley. 'Beating' or punishing lightly could mean anything from withholding wages to pressing formal charges for whatever crime had been committed against the employer. Do you know anything about Roman or Semetic cultures? You don't physically beat servants to begin with - in both cultures you could be prosecuted for assault, much like in our day. :tsktsk: :rolleyes:
It's not remotely related to serfdom either you ignorant retard. Every single one of your posts in this thread are filled with ad hoc, high-school level arguments that don't stand up to the context of culture, language, or common fucking sense. It's a waste trying to explain anything to you because you don't listen to anyone even when it's obvious that you're completely in left field. It has nothing to do with studying this most of my life, it has to do with taking 10 minutes to read two paragraphs on the subject in a $15 commentary you can pick up at any bookstore before you start spouting this tired bullshit about how the bible condones slavery. Even a legitimate secular commentary will tell you that indentured servanthood and even true bound slavery in the ancient middle east has no relation to our modern western perception of the word.
But go ahead and barrel through like you usually do, learn nothing in the process, and still look like an ignorant blowhard at the end of the conversation. I'm sure changing your screen name again will help us all forget what an insufferable dumb ass you are.
Starrfall on 10/12/2007 at 14:53
Quote Posted by SD
In fact, this most heinous and immoral practice is endorsed right through the Bible. As Jefferson Davis put it: "Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."
I think he lost that argument though
fett on 10/12/2007 at 15:14
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I think he lost that argument though
IN ON PAGE 12 WITH STAGGERING FEATS OF LOGIC AND KEEN PIERCING INSIGHT.
I haven't even bothered to point out yet that SD relies on an ACTUAL proponent of civil war era slavery to interpret the biblical stance on slavery. Maybe next we can get Ted Nugent or Charlton Heston to interpret the 2nd amendment for us. :thumb:
SD on 10/12/2007 at 16:42
See kids, this is where arguing the toss about fairy stories gets you.
You know what fett, maybe I am wrong about the context in this instance, although I'm not sure what makes your interpretation any more valid than mine, nor why you get so angry that I'm not able to "read between the lines" of this pseudo-historic mumbo-jumbo.
Either way I don't particularly care. In the end, anyone who devotes more than 15 minutes to this mythological BULLSHIT is wasting their time, and I for one am glad I generally don't.
PS I can't recommend the (
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) Skeptics Annotated Bible highly enough though.
phide on 10/12/2007 at 18:41
Quote Posted by fett
Beating refers to punishment dumbass, not beating with a whip...'Beating' or punishing lightly could mean anything from withholding wages to pressing formal charges for whatever crime had been committed against the employer.
I'm not sure I understand how you could possibly interpret it that way, but okay.
Perhaps "slavery" really means "potato salad".
fett on 10/12/2007 at 19:21
@ both of you: BECAUSE THE TEXT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED FROM ANOTHER LANGUAGE. How difficult is that to understand? Words don't mean the same fucking thing when they cross cultures, languages, or time. It's true today and it was true two centuries ago. My god, have either of you taken a high school Spanish course? I can't believe this concept is that difficult for you to grasp!! Note that more modern (and accurate) translations like the NKJV and NASB use the word 'servant' or 'bondservant' instead of slave. There's a reason that bible translations are updated - we're constantly learning more about common use of languages through archeology, and in the case of the biblical languages, the continued study of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
SD, this is the part where you predictably reject any insight you might gain from someone who knows more than you because you're so fucking hung up on the bible being 'mythical mumbo-jumbo' that you can't see the difference between it's spiritual content and it's value as a piece of literature. This is simple: apply the same expectations and rules to the bible as you apply to Shakespeare, the philosophers, or anything that wasn't published prior to your birth. You've spent three pages banging on about how the bible endorses slavery, you're wrong, and instead of simply admitting your ignorance, you want to pretend it's irrelevant because of the subject matter. Further solidifying most everyone's opinion of you as an arrogant, ignorant jackass who can't shut up long enough to engage in a meaningful conversation. Carry on!
phide - I can interpret it that way because I spent the better part of 7 years studying the goddamn language it's written in. I might have a fucking clue that the word 'slave' means something different than what SD claims it does. Perhaps you can stick your potato salad up your ass.
phide on 10/12/2007 at 19:50
Great. So your translations are more accurate than other (published) translations?
Why would a translator choose words that mean something very different in Old English or Modern English, especially for such controversial topics, when there are far more appropriate words? If, in the Bible, one word most appropriately translates in English to "servant", why would one choose to use the word "slave"? If another word most appropriately translates to "punish", why would one choose to use the word "beat"? As far as I'm aware, there has never been any English definition for "beat" that describes something analogous to "punish".
Potato salad.
