Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[blü 2]

The point is, you claimed it would be a conspiracy theory to beleive that all those translations would have the same mistake. Unless of course they all come from the same source. The number of the translations, is what you claimed as important, but that volume has been reduced dramatically.

I accepted the point you made. Which leaves all the distinct re-translations agreeing on the word "sell" ─ the concept of property, ownership, transmission of title by commercial transaction.
[/QUOTE]

Regardless. My objection is that the word 'sell' does not match the rest of the words. And that all the critics in this thread are ignoring all the words but one.

As I said, I'm reliant on translators and their reputations. If they're not fussed ─ and again I point out that indeed they're not fussed ─ then neither am I.

By that same logic, it is perfectly reasonable to focus on one word "dealt"

A dealer is either a buyer and seller of goods, or sometimes an intermediary between buyers and sellers.

I accept that 'deal with' may also mean to address, sort out, fix. But in the text it represents no conflict with 'sell'.

She's not property if she consented.

Why not? Why would her benevolent owner not take her wishes into consideration when setting out to exercise the rights of ownership?

The father sells a slave with conditions to a new owner. The owner does not meet those conditions; therefore, the new owner dealt falsley with HIM the father.

So far so good.

The ONLY way for the owner to have dealt falsely with HER, the daughter, is if she has an agreement with the new owner. Therefore she was not a slave, and is not a slave.

No. It says the new owner / purchaser is accountable to the old owner / vendor if the conditions are breached.

He *dealt* falsely with her means he had a deal with her.

No, it simply doesn't have to mean that in English. A can deal fairly or falsely with B without B ever being aware of A eg when A is the official considering B's written application for something.

 

[dybmh]

What fun!

Agreed! I love this stuff.

(Oh, I've been wondering, what does "go out" mean in verse 7?)

Let's start here. "Go out" is the end of the term of service. Hebrew slaves became slaves because they were in debt and couldn't provide for themselves. Sometimes this was due to crime, or damages. Sometimes they just became destitute. So, they would sell themselves into slavery ( indentured servitude ). The duration of the service was either 6 years or until Jubilee which ever came first. From this, a person can calculate the term of service, and determine how much money to pay for the slave to recover the debt. This is true for both male and female Hebrew slaves ( Combined laws of Exo 21:2, Deut 15:12, and Lev 25:40 ).

The female Hebrew maidservant sold from the father is a very special case. Normally a father marries off his daughter when she is physically mature. But if he is destitute, he can reduce his expenses and marry her off early transferring custody to another family. So, the importnt detail here is, she is a minor. But, she can't be married off as a minor. So, this is a future marriage arrangement ( she is "designated" ). An agreement is made for the daughter to work in the household of the new family. But the term of service is not set. It depends on when she matures physically. That's when the term of service ends and she is no longer a maidservant, she is supposed to become a wife. Because of this, "she does not go out as the male slaves do". Her term of service depends on when she physically matures. This detail about physical maturity is confirmed in the Talmud. I can look it up if needed.

I think something may be being overlooked here.

OK.

You don't issue a rule so specific unless it stands as an exception to some other rule or practice. So, an exception to what? Male slaves. Female slaves that are not betrothed to the master. All of whom can, by implication, be "sold to a foreign person". So this particular rule bears witness to the prevailing practice of slavery, does it not?

These sorts of details need a Jewish translation that takes into account the entire law. For example, these are Hebrew slaves. Neither of them, male or female, can be sold to a foreign nation. Doing so would prevent their freedom after 6 years or Jubilee, whichever comes first. That's why in my preferred translation the words translated by the RSV as "a foreign people" are translated instead as "another person" IOW " sale to "any other person" is prohibited. The Hebrew could mean either one. It's "לְעַ֥ם נָכְרִ֛י" which literally means "to strange people".

That said, yes, there is a something being contrasted. It's contrasted with the male Hebrew slave where there is money traded for a fixed amount of time served. Here the father has reduced his expenses, and the daughter has agreed to the future betrothal, in exchange for entrance into a specific family. That family arrangement cannot be shifted to some other family. For the male Hebrew slave, he can be transferred because the money has already been paid to the debtor, that means his time has been purchased. But for the daughter, she has not recieved her payment until she is a bride of that family.

Certainly the following verses which limit harming a Hebrew slave contrast with the practices of other nations. Is that what you meant by "prevailing practice of slavery"? At one point I saw a write-up on this showing other ancient slavery practices and how the Torah rejects them. For example, knocking out the teeth of a slave, in theory, got them to eat less. This sort of cruelty is rejected by the Torah.

 

[dybmh]

As I said, I'm reliant on translators and their reputations. If they're not fussed ─ and again I point out that indeed they're not fussed ─ then neither am I.

I agreed to use the RSV, and I am continuing to do that in good faith. I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.

A dealer is either a buyer and seller of goods, or sometimes an intermediary between buyers and sellers.

I accept that 'deal with' may also mean to address, sort out, fix. But in the text it represents no conflict with 'sell'.

He dealt with her falsley... If he is the "dealer", she is the customer not the merchandise.

The father sells a slave with conditions to a new owner. The owner does not meet those conditions; therefore, the new owner dealt falsley with HIM the father.

So far so good

Good. Please note, this the opposite of what is in the verse.

"The father sells a slave with conditions to a new owner. The owner does not meet those conditions; therefore, the new owner dealt falsley with HIM the father."

The verse says he dealt falsely with her. Therefore, if we are good to here, that means that your understanding of the verses don't match what's written.

The conditions *must* have been set by the daughter in order for the new head of household to have "dealt falsley with HER" not with HIM.

No. It says the new owner / purchaser is accountable to the old owner / vendor if the conditions are breached.

That would be "dealt falsely with HIM". You agreed to this just a few sentences back.

No, it simply doesn't have to mean that in English. A can deal fairly or falsely with B without B ever being aware of A eg when A is the official considering B's written application for something.

OK, I cannot parse this as A and B.

You said: A can deal fairly or falsely with B without B ever being aware of A eg when A is the official considering B's written application for something.

I understand that as: The Owner can deal fairly or falsely with the Slave without the Slave ever being aware of the Owner.

That makes no sense in this case. If the Slave is not aware, then fair vs. false is irrevelvent, there are no consequences. In these verses there is consequences, therefore the Slave is aware of the Owner and the Owner's actions, and the Owner dealing falsely with the Slave.

So, as I stated: He *dealt* falsely with her means he had a deal with her. Otherwise, there are no consequences.

 

[blü 2]

I agreed to use the RSV, and I am continuing to do that in good faith. I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.


He dealt with her falsley... If he is the "dealer", she is the customer not the merchandise.




Good. Please note, this the opposite of what is in the verse.

"The father sells a slave with conditions to a new owner. The owner does not meet those conditions; therefore, the new owner dealt falsley with HIM the father."

The verse says he dealt falsely with her. Therefore, if we are good to here, that means that your understanding of the verses don't match what's written.

The conditions *must* have been set by the daughter in order for the new head of household to have "dealt falsley with HER" not with HIM.

That would be "dealt falsely with HIM". You agreed to this just a few sentences back.

View attachment 73708




OK, I cannot parse this as A and B.

You said: A can deal fairly or falsely with B without B ever being aware of A eg when A is the official considering B's written application for something.

I understand that as: The Owner can deal fairly or falsely with the Slave without the Slave ever being aware of the Owner.

That makes no sense in this case. If the Slave is not aware, then fair vs. false is irrevelvent, there are no consequences. In these verses there is consequences, therefore the Slave is aware of the Owner and the Owner's actions, and the Owner dealing falsely with the Slave.

So, as I stated: He *dealt* falsely with her means he had a deal with her. Otherwise, there are no consequences.

Enough. We've had the debate. We're down to the bickering, which I don't need.

Go well.

 

[joelr]

You keep missing the parts that I want you to note.
The degree to which the stories of Abraham reflect a long process of oral tradition is debatable.
In other words. They are all opinions.

If you are quoting VS then the question of oral tradition isn't a question about an Abraham living long before the Israelites. The question is once the Israelites formed and began to unify, after 1000 BCE, did they develop oral stories about a fictive founder, Abraham, OR was this created in 600 BCE when Genesis was created.
There isn't any belief in historical scholarship about any Israelite/Judahite persons before 1200 BCE because they were Canaanites.
Never mind Abraham, Moses is no longer considered to be real as portrayed in scripture.
Abraham looks to be entirely fictional while Moses may be based on a known leader but biblical text is made up. Much of the stories are Egyptian myths from other leaders, also mythic.

Did These Bible Characters Exist? Asking Expert Dr. Joel Baden

3:50 Did Adam exist?

4:15 several different stories about Abraham , don’t line up


5:00 Cain, Able, mythological story

6:07 Enoch, Noah….no, stop, myth


6:44 Abraham exist? Nothing in the Biblical account that we can say is true of any human.


Stories suggest they are regional and each picked a fictive person that God gave the land to.

The stories grew as time went by.

Abraham of Bible, does not exist. An early tribal leader named Abraham, possibly.

9:03 - Abraham is fictional, the character of Abraham is fictional.

9:30 Joseph is a name tied to a region. Tribal connections, story in text is fiction.

10:25 MOSES - nothing in Bible can be historically verified.

Possibly based on a real person who came from Egypt. Maybe helped one slave to become free from Egypt.

Nothing in Bible on Moses is historically verifiable or even plausible.

With Moses there may have been a person named Moses who was some type of leader. Biblical text, all myth.

 

[joelr]

I'm just trying to figure out of you're able to listen to what Dr. Baden is saying and compare it to the actual story. Not what you think it says, but what it actually says.

It says what Dr Baden says it says. He understands the Hebrew.

Is the ground dry or wet in Gen 1? Doesn't it say the ground is dry twice?

No. First a God has to divide the cosmic waters so heaven can exist. Earth existed "without form". Then the waters below heaven were put into one place which created oceans and dry land.

You said "In the 2nd creation account land and heaven are created". That's not actually true. Land and heaven are not created in Gen 2. If you pay close attention the land and the heaven already existed in Gen 2.

In 2 it says they were created, - "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," God makes heaven and Earth on the same day.

These are cosmic ocean creation stories also found in Egyptian, Greek and other cultures.

Lastly, did you notice at the beginning of the lecture he says there's only one way to read Gen 1 and Gen 2? But then at the end of the lecture he says, there is no right or wrong way to read the Bible? There's always another way? "A voice came from heaven and said, You're both right"? Did you notice that? What do you think of this? Isn't that an obvious contradiction?

"The Bible is anything other than a single clear statement of belief. Or truth. It's a jumble of beliefs and opinions. Right from the go. .."
Notion of "the truth" has to be thrown out because there is not just one truth represented.

That is his point, we welcome other societies with different religious beliefs. Turns out, that is also the Bible. Because it contains different sets of ideas and beliefs from that time. The text IS indecisive so how do we deal with that?
It's about inclusion rather than exclusion, not just one point of view. (because it had many authors and represented many ideas, even opposing ideas of the time). So he sees it as a window into beliefs of the past and forces us to be open to different ideologies. It's possible it was put together to create discussion in philosophy rather than a literalist reading. Apologetics tries to erase this and force one singular view.

 

[joelr]

Well, if that's the idea "plagiarize is discussed at this point" maybe it would be good to say that.

What I said was -

"
33:43 Genesis uses what we would call plagiarism from Mesopotamian literature.
Plagiarism as an idea was not around back then."

Uses what WE would call plagiarism but it wasn't a concept back then, why would that not be clear enough?
It's a timestamp with a brief synopsis of the topic being discussed to make it easier to jump right to topics. I definitely got the message across that there was some type of discussion about plagiarism.

 

[joelr]

Joel, you said:

"Yahweh possibly borrowed from Egyptian text (Yahweh from south)"

But what he actually said was:

"Yahweh was borrowed from a group who lived in the area of Southern Palestine"

So, what you wrote IS a misquote. The professor said it was borrowed from a group in southern palestine. You said it was borrowed from an Egyptian text.

I like the videos, I really do. And I think you have a lot to offer to the discussion ( when you speak in your own voice ). But the way you're presenting the material is faulty. I understand, you want to bring the information from the videos without making people watch them. That's great! But you need to actually quote what they're saying. These paraphrased topic headings do not accurately represent what's said.

Can you see the difference between "borrowed from Egyptian text" and "borrowed from group from S. Palestine"???

It's a bit pedantic but honestly, it's wrong.

At 47:35 -What is said, by Professor L. Grabbe - " Possibly Yahweh was borrowed from a group who lived in the area of southern Palestine because we find an Egyptian text...."


I am confused. There is a difference between borrowed from a text and borrowed from a group, if you are talking about an actual group of people, probably alive today, who hold an opinion they speak on. Versus if they had a written manifesto or something.

But regarding 3000 years ago we have only text. We don't know how many people were represented by the text, we know nothing. He first said "group" in a colloquial casual way but he was clearly talking about a text which he then said. He assumes it's a "group" but the point is we have a text, and that is why I said text because it accurately describes the part of the video.
The only way to reference a "group" in the Bronze age would be from a passage in a historian like Josephus who said "there was a group of people who believed...." But this is a text. So that is super accurate.

I'm not trying to get people to skip the video, I'm giving a quick note about what is covered when so if the topic is at all interesting then go and listen to a scholar speak about it.
Did you not listen to the conversation about the text?

 

[joelr]

Agreed! I love this stuff.



Let's start here. "Go out" is the end of the term of service. Hebrew slaves became slaves because they were in debt and couldn't provide for themselves. Sometimes this was due to crime, or damages. Sometimes they just became destitute. So, they would sell themselves into slavery ( indentured servitude ). The duration of the service was either 6 years or until Jubilee which ever came first. From this, a person can calculate the term of service, and determine how much money to pay for the slave to recover the debt. This is true for both male and female Hebrew slaves ( Combined laws of Exo 21:2, Deut 15:12, and Lev 25:40 ).

You left out the part about if the master got the slave a wife (and he had children) they stay. Unless the slave says "I love my master" and is then a permanent slave but he gets to stay with his wife and children.
Bit of a "loophole".

 

[danieldemol]

Try me. I'm a reasonable person. I'm extremely good at understanding. That's one of my specialties.

Here are my points:

1. There is no money exchanged

That's your assumption as is that no other goods were given in exchange

1. The word in hebrew does not always mean purchased

But it can mean purchased, so in this context unless the father decides to give up ownership of his daughter for nothing in return it could mean a sale or trade has occurred.

1. There is different word used for slave

In my opinion you didn't establish that it wasn't synonymous with slavery, if I recall you used the story of Joseph to show he was transferred then sold, but he was owned throughout being transferred until sale, because he wasn't a free man.

1. There is a different word used for purchasing slaves
2. The details do not describe a property purchase

I think the details describe a conditional property purchase. She is sold or transferred on condition that she be not onsold as I see it.

In my opinion.

 

[dybmh]

Enough. We've had the debate. We're down to the bickering, which I don't need.

Go well.

You admitted that the verses say the opposite of the conclusion you have made. Perhaps it was an accident, but, you did it none the less.

She is not sold as property because: He dealt falsely with her. Falsely = untruthfully. He had a deal with her.

If a person pays attention to the details, none of the words in the verses in the RSV describe a sale of property except for 1 word. That means in context the word "sell" is being misunderstood.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You admitted that the verses say the opposite of the conclusion you have made. Perhaps it was an accident, but, you did it none the less.

She is not sold as property because: He dealt falsely with her. Falsely = untruthfully. He had a deal with her.

If a person pays attention to the details, none of the words in the verses in the RSV describe a sale of property except for 1 word. That means in context the word "sell" is being misunderstood.

Yes, I get you. I get it was different times and all that. And I don't consider it wrong for that time, because that is how it worked.
But you are nitpicking words, because to force a minor to work, is in the modern broad sense a form of slavery.

 

[Alien826]

Let's start here. "Go out" is the end of the term of service. Hebrew slaves became slaves because they were in debt and couldn't provide for themselves. Sometimes this was due to crime, or damages. Sometimes they just became destitute. So, they would sell themselves into slavery ( indentured servitude ). The duration of the service was either 6 years or until Jubilee which ever came first. From this, a person can calculate the term of service, and determine how much money to pay for the slave to recover the debt. This is true for both male and female Hebrew slaves ( Combined laws of Exo 21:2, Deut 15:12, and Lev 25:40 ).

I see. It's interesting that this kind of "slavery" is not limited to Biblical times. Many of the people that populated the USA (not Native Americans of course) were indentured and their contract could be sold to others.

The female Hebrew maidservant sold from the father is a very special case. Normally a father marries off his daughter when she is physically mature. But if he is destitute, he can reduce his expenses and marry her off early transferring custody to another family. So, the importnt detail here is, she is a minor. But, she can't be married off as a minor. So, this is a future marriage arrangement ( she is "designated" ). An agreement is made for the daughter to work in the household of the new family. But the term of service is not set. It depends on when she matures physically. That's when the term of service ends and she is no longer a maidservant, she is supposed to become a wife. Because of this, "she does not go out as the male slaves do". Her term of service depends on when she physically matures. This detail about physical maturity is confirmed in the Talmud. I can look it up if needed.

Something that occurs to me here, and it may be a bit off topic, is the culture of the times. People lived in family groups and outside that tribes. The opportunities for an unmarried woman outside a family group were very limited. So even though the girl may technically have had choice in who, or if, she became betrothed to, in practice she pretty much had to do as she was told, or face a very bleak future.

These sorts of details need a Jewish translation that takes into account the entire law. For example, these are Hebrew slaves. Neither of them, male or female, can be sold to a foreign nation. Doing so would prevent their freedom after 6 years or Jubilee, whichever comes first. That's why in my preferred translation the words translated by the RSV as "a foreign people" are translated instead as "another person" IOW " sale to "any other person" is prohibited. The Hebrew could mean either one. It's "לְעַ֥ם נָכְרִ֛י" which literally means "to strange people".

That does make a difference. This does apply to Jews enslaving Jews though? I seem to remember a different rule for Jews enslaving non Jews.

That said, yes, there is a something being contrasted. It's contrasted with the male Hebrew slave where there is money traded for a fixed amount of time served. Here the father has reduced his expenses, and the daughter has agreed to the future betrothal, in exchange for entrance into a specific family. That family arrangement cannot be shifted to some other family. For the male Hebrew slave, he can be transferred because the money has already been paid to the debtor, that means his time has been purchased. But for the daughter, she has not recieved her payment until she is a bride of that family.

OK.

Certainly the following verses which limit harming a Hebrew slave contrast with the practices of other nations. Is that what you meant by "prevailing practice of slavery"? At one point I saw a write-up on this showing other ancient slavery practices and how the Torah rejects them. For example, knocking out the teeth of a slave, in theory, got them to eat less. This sort of cruelty is rejected by the Torah.

I meant within the Jewish practice of the time, but your explanation has changed my conclusion.

 

[blü 2]

You admitted that the verses say the opposite of the conclusion you have made. Perhaps it was an accident, but, you did it none the less.

She is not sold as property because: He dealt falsely with her. Falsely = untruthfully. He had a deal with her.

If a person pays attention to the details, none of the words in the verses in the RSV describe a sale of property except for 1 word. That means in context the word "sell" is being misunderstood.

No respectable translation agrees with you. Yes, that will be small consolation if you're right. But as it stands I see good old-fashioned unsurprising very-usual-in-its-time-and-place slavery. And so I find the translators' agreement on the point wholly unsurprising.

'Nuff said.

 

[dybmh]

That's your assumption as is that no other goods were given in exchange

True, and that's a good point. Thank you.

But it can mean purchased, so in this context unless the father decides to give up ownership of his daughter for nothing in return it could mean a sale or trade has occurred.

So, this isn't a rebuttal. You're saying maybe it's a purchase, maybe not. Right?

In my opinion you didn't establish that it wasn't synonymous with slavery, if I recall you used the story of Joseph to show he was transferred then sold, but he was owned throughout being transferred until sale, because he wasn't a free man.

Also, this isn't a rebuttal. What I'm saying is true, but it's not conclusive?

I think the details describe a conditional property purchase. She is sold or transferred on condition that she be not onsold as I see it.

What sort of property purchase prohibits being onsold? There isn't any. It certainly doesn't describe slavery. It's not cattle. Not a house, a car, or a hammer. Please note: the questions are, is she a slave? Is she property?

So, the onsale prohibition is weird. The other weird detail is that somehow, the new "owner" has dealt falsely with her. That's a direct quote from the RSV. My preferred translation has it as "betrayed her". I also saw a translation as "fraud". If the father sold her on condition, then the new owner somehow dealt falsley with him, the father. It doesn't say that. The new "owner" made a deal with her, the daughter, and broke his promise. The result is, the daughter returns to her original family.

How is she property, if a deal was made with her? This deal has consequences. Thats not property, that's an employee.

In my opinion.

So, really, in review of the details there are questions about what's happening here. Assuming that the daughter is slave doesn't work. Assuming she is property doesn't work either. If so, then, the right thing to do is say, "I don't know about this one. Clearly the foreign slaves are bought and sold and treated as property. That fits and makes senses. But this thing with a father selling his daughter doesn't make sense."

I think the understanding of a "transfer of custody with the daughter's consent" works. Is there a reason or reasons that it doesn't work?

 

[dybmh]

No respectable translation agrees with you. Yes, that will be small consolation if you're right. But as it stands I see good old-fashioned unsurprising very-usual-in-its-time-and-place slavery. And so I find the translators' agreement on the point wholly unsurprising.

'Nuff said.

All translations I have found say "he dealt falsely with her". Mine says betrayed. Another said fraud. All translations agree with me, that he had a deal with HER. All translations agree with me that she cannot be sold.

No one has been able to give an example of a property purchase that fits these two details.

 

[blü 2]

All translations I have found say "he dealt falsely with her". Mine says betrayed. Another said fraud. All translations agree with me, that he had a deal with HER. All translations agree with me that she cannot be sold.

No one has been able to give an example of a property purchase that fits these two details.

Bye now! Go well.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, I get you. I get it was different times and all that. And I don't consider it wrong for that time, because that is how it worked.
But you are nitpicking words, because to force a minor to work, is in the modern broad sense a form of slavery.

Was she forced to work? He made a deal with her implies that she had a choice.

Also, take a look at the story of Eliezer seeking a wife for Isaac. That's in Genesis 24. If you read it carefully, Rebecca is a young girl a "נער", she is in her father's custody. When it comes time to arrange her marraige, the father says, "I will ask her". She is asked, "will you go with him?" She says "yes". ( Genesis 24:57-58 ). These are Abraham's kin. This is the Jewish custom going back generations. Eventhough she is a young girl, she consents. The daughter in Exodus 21 is consenting to a future engagement. She's not being forced.

 

[dybmh]

Bye now! Go well.

Your inability to come up with any examples of a purchase where onsale is prohibited or where a slave makes an enforcable deal with their master is noted. This is not a property purchase of any sort that can be described.

Yes, it makes sense to run away. Although it would be better to admit that you have never examined these details before, and you are unable to reconcile the idea of a property purchase with the actual words in Exodus 21:7-11.

 

[blü 2]

Your inability to come up with any examples of a purchase where onsale is prohibited or where a slave makes an enforcable deal with their master is noted. This is not a property purchase of any sort that can be described.

Yes, it makes sense to run away. Although it would be better to admit that you have never examined these details before, and you are unable to reconcile the idea of a property pruchase with the actual words in Exodus 21:7-11.

Ha, that old taunt! Have a lovely day!