Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[dybmh]

Well, yeah, it's just the title and then timestamped subjects.
It means "plagiarize is discussed at this point" and the professor mentions they didn't have the concept so I included that in the description.
No one says anything was plagiarized, the consensus is that Genesis is a response to Mesopotamian mythology.

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

 

[dybmh]

I'll post for those who care, this is a misquote, the professor does not say it is not Yahweh

My post ISN'T A MISQUOTE. I said - "Yahweh possibly borrowed from Egyptian text (Yahweh from south)"

47:34

Lester L. Grabbe PhD​

"Yahweh first occurs..it's thought that possibly Yahweh was borrowed from a group who lived in the area of Southern Palestine because we find in the Egyptain text the name Y-H (gutteral sound that may correspond..) and it looks like...it may be the name Yahweh...
HOST - "so this would have been an Egyptian God?"
PROFESSOR - "Well it was a placename in the Egyptian text and someone said it's clearly the same and places often had names of Gods...
Elija has EL...some think that this indicates the name Yahweh was borrowed...


So the professor says the literal words - "possibly Yahweh" and that Gods were often written as placenames in these text from Egypt
The professor in fact does say that it's thought that this possibly is Yahweh. There is no "not Yahweh",that is a mis-quote, there is "possibly Yahweh" what I said.

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"???

 

[blü 2]

We can use the same translation. That's why I said we didn't need to get bogged down in that.

I feel like you missed the part where I said "not like a car, or cattle, or a hammer." Where you are, if you own a car, cattle, or a hammer, are you prohibited from selling it to someone else? What sort of things where you are have a similar right for onsell which is subject to conditions? Is there anything at all like this where you are?

Also, what are the conditions, in your opinion, from the verses in the RSV? Specifically at the end? What does it mean for the "owner" to have dealt falsely with her?

I think we're rather fiddling round the edges. The point is that these are rules about a particular kind of property, a daughter, whose father as owner is entitled to sell her. The purchaser will undertake by law particular obligations, which appear to be (I infer) to maintain her and treat her in a personable manner. If he breaches those terms, the sale may be annulled,

That's sufficient ─ whether the purchaser abides by the terms or not, the daughter is property, and the only question is, which male is her owner.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think we're rather fiddling round the edges. The point is that these are rules about a particular kind of property, a daughter, whose father as owner is entitled to sell her. The purchaser will undertake by law particular obligations, which appear to be (I infer) to maintain her and treat her in a personable manner. If he breaches those terms, the sale may be annulled,

That's sufficient ─ whether the purchaser abides by the terms or not, the daughter is property, and the only question is, which male is her owner.

Now you just have to show that the fact the daughter is property, is wrong as wrong as with evidence and that wrong is a part of the really real reality?

 

[dybmh]

I think we're rather fiddling round the edges. The point is that these are rules about a particular kind of property, a daughter, whose father as owner is entitled to sell her. The purchaser will undertake by law particular obligations, which appear to be (I infer) to maintain her and treat her in a personable manner. If he breaches those terms, the sale may be annulled,

That's sufficient ─ whether the purchaser abides by the terms or not, the daughter is property, and the only question is, which male is her owner.

A particular kind of property does not automatically = slave.

The question is, to whom were the obligations made. If the agreement was between the "owner" and the daughter, then she is not a slave. If she was the father's property, then not abiding by the terms would be dealing faithlessly with him, the father.

8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt faithlessly with her.

And, if those obligations are not fullfilled, it's not that the sale "may be" annulled. They shall be annuled.

Can we agree, this is not slavery?

Regarding the purchase, when I proposed to my wife, i gave her an engagement ring. Did I purchase her? Did she prostitute herself? Is the exchange of something valuable, money, gold, etc... automatically purchasing property?

Bride price - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A particular kind of property does not automatically = slave.

...

Yes and no! It depends on the definition of slavery.

 

[dybmh]

Yes and no! It depends on the definition of slavery.

^^ WINNER! ^^

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

^^ WINNER! ^^

Well, please don't get me wrong. But for certain societies for free men versus being a slave, it was better being a certain kind of slave and worse being another kind of slave than being a poor free man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A particular kind of property does not automatically = slave.

The question is, to whom were the obligations made. If the agreement was between the "owner" and the daughter, then she is not a slave. If she was the father's property, then not abiding by the terms would be dealing faithlessly with him, the father.



And, if those obligations are not fullfilled, it's not that the sale "may be" annulled. They shall be annuled.

Can we agree, this is not slavery?

Regarding the purchase, when I proposed to my wife, i gave her an engagement ring. Did I purchase her? Did she prostitute herself? Is the exchange of something valuable, money, gold, etc... automatically purchasing property?

Bride price - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Wait - so your argument is that owning another person as property doesn’t necessarily equate to slavery and therefore isn't necessarily bad?

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wait - so your argument is that owning another person as property doesn’t necessarily equate to slavery and therefore isn't necessarily bad?

Do I understand you correctly?

No, that there are different kinds of slavery and that some people treat all variants as the same. Not that slavery is not bad to us today, but that slavery is not just slavery.
Now personally I view owning women because they are women as a form of slavery, but that is it. It is a form of slavery.

 

[dybmh]

Wait - so your argument is that owning another person as property doesn’t necessarily equate to slavery and therefore isn't necessarily bad?

Do I understand you correctly?

My argument is, what's happening in Exodus 21 is custody. The father has custody and is transferring that to a new family. The daughter has agreed to serve in the household IF this will eventually lead to marriage.

Getting someone to abandon their strongly held misconception about these verses is extremely difficult, and that requires going through it slowly. One step at a time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My argument is, what's happening in Exodus 21 is custody. The father has custody and is transferring that to a new family. The daughter has agreed to serve in the household and that this will eventually lead to marriage.

Getting someone to abandon their strongly held misconception about these verses is extremely difficult, and that requires going through it slowly. One step at a time.

So you're still talking about an evil arrangement: denying a woman the opportunity to consent to her own marriage.

The idea that a woman of marriageable age should be in "custody" of anyone is heinous.

... but to get back to the point of the thread: you do agree that God commanded this arrangement, right?

 

[Muffled]

"Spiritual proof" sounds like an oxymoron. Spiritual evidence might make some sense, but only on a subjective, individual basis.

What does subjective mean in that case. Does it mean the experience is limited to the person or is it possible the experience can be found in more than one individual. Usually Christians will give credit to the fruit of the Spirit for all believers but gifts can be individual. For instance I can't levitate as some have experienced and I can't fly the way the Buddha did. However the love of God is in me because Jesus is in me and should be in anyone who has received Jesus as Lord and Savior.

 

[dybmh]

So you're still talking about an evil arrangement: denying a woman the opportunity to consent to her own marriage.

The idea that a woman of marriageable age should be in "custody" of anyone is heinous.

... but to get back to the point of the thread: you do agree that God commanded this arrangement, right?

No, I'm saying the daughter has agreed. There is consent. That's in the post you replied to.

 

[Muffled]

Wouldn't actual "proofs" generate universal acceptance, like the laws of mathematics? I see very little religious consensus.

There's general agreement even for well evidenced but unproven science, like the germ theory or heliocentrism.

I don't believe anyone has ever taken a poll of Christians to see if the experience is the same. I believe most of us just assume that it is.

 

[Muffled]

There are spiritual laws akin to mathematical laws but are generally not thought of as such in a materialistic society. Just like certain mathematical laws and formulas have a defined effect, so do spiritual laws and virtues. Love is a force or power that has a tremendous effect on the individual and society which requires no proof as to its potency. Yet it is a spiritual law.

I believe in my experience one can't get a person to love simply by requiring it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I'm saying the daughter has agreed. There is consent. That's in the post you replied to.

View attachment 73629

Where in the Bible passage does it mention anything about needing the daughter's consent?

And my question again, since you overlooked it: you do agree that God commanded this arrangement, right?

 

[dybmh]

Where in the Bible passage does it mention anything about needing the daughter's consent?

At the end...

The new custodian "dealt falsely with her". Not with the father. The daughter was included in the agreement else, the new custodian would have dealt falsely with him, the father. "with her" means she is included in the arrangement.

And my question again, since you overlooked it: you do agree that God commanded this arrangement, right?

I didn't overlook it. You misprepresented my position, inspite of directly quoting it. Like I said, the issue of biblical slavery is so deeply ingrained in people that there is a knee-jerk reaction to it. Details are almost always skipped by those who sling mud at the Bible. So we needed to clear that up first.

Answering your question: God has permitted a transfer of custody of a young girl to serve in another family IF she agrees and IF it leads to marriage. But if the new custodian has any evil intentions "רָעָ֞ה בְּעֵינֵ֧י", then the young girl returns to her family.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At the end...

The new custodian "dealt falsely with her". Not with the father. The daughter was included in the agreement else, the new custodian would have dealt falsely with him, the father. "with her" means she is included in the arrangement.



I didn't overlook it. You misprepresented my position, inspite of directly quoting it. Like I said, the issue of biblical slavery is so deeply ingrained in people that there is a knee-jerk reaction to it. Details are almost always skipped by those who sling mud at the Bible. So we needed to clear that up first.

Answering your question: God has permitted a transfer of custody of a young girl to serve in another family IF she agrees and IF it leads to marriage. But if the new custodian has any evil intentions "רָעָ֞ה בְּעֵינֵ֧י", then the young girl returns to her family.

I have no idea how you get that from this:

7 Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go free as the slaves go free.

8 If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her.

... and at this point, I don't really care about what mental gymnastics you'll use to justify your position.

 

[dybmh]

I have no idea how you get that from this:

7 Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go free as the slaves go free.

8 If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her.

... and at this point, I don't really care about what mental gymnastics you'll use to justify your position.

How does the owner of a slave betray a slave?

All it takes is the tiniest amount of critical thinking to undermine the claim that the daughter is sold into slavery.