Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[dybmh]

Ha, that old taunt! Have a lovely day!

You are running away. Why not admit that you never examined these details before? Why not admit that you cannot come up with any examples of a property purchase that matches the details?

Is it too much for you to admit that you were wrong about this? And your conclusion requires ignoring the details, reducing the accuracy of the text. In other words, a critic requires a shallow superficial approach to scripture?

 

[danieldemol]

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

Welcome

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

I'm saying it covers all 3 cases, the transfer of property as a gift, the transfer of property as a trade, the transfer of property as a purchase.

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

No, according to my understanding it refers to the transfer of property as was the case with Joseph who was not a free man during the transfers. Therefore I believe what you are saying here is false.

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?

There are conditional property purchases, for example off the top of my head the law permits you to purchase tobacco conditionally that you dont onsell it to minors. But the tobacco is still your property.

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".

Yes, he dealt falsely with her by on-selling her. She is in a higher category of slave than a war captive - but a slave nonetheless.

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.

I disagree, in Australia if you are cruel to the animals owned by you they can be seized. One could say that kind of like a higher class of cattle she has certain rights, but is owned nonetheless.

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?

Quite simply the fact that the law doesn't require her consent to the conditional sale, it requires her father's consent.

In my opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Yeah, maybe. I read a site that explained it slightly differently.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Can scientists be mistaken, or do you view them as infallible?
The Bible says Israel practice false worship - worshiping gods like Baal.
So, scientists finding a temple of Baal in Lachish, or any place for that matter, does not mean it is automatically Canaanite, does it.
The Israelites went very far in their apostasy.

 

[dybmh]

I'm saying it covers all 3 cases, the transfer of property as a gift, the transfer of property as a trade, the transfer of property as a purchase.

No, according to my understanding it refers to the transfer of property as was the case with Joseph who was not a free man during the transfers. Therefore I believe what you are saying here is false.

He was being treated as property. But the transfers weren't sales. Each party in the process did not take ownership of him. Which indicates that the word used for "sell" doesn't always mean sell in the conventional sense.

Something I've mentioned several times. There are times when people are considered property by the law and others and it is not immoral, nor is the person property. But they are treated as property because it's useful in a legal context.

1) Custody of a child
2) Payout for damages

Where you are, if someone runs over a child, if the court determines the driver is at fault, who receives the payout? It's the parents / guardians, correct? Why do they do this? The child is being treated as property, but, do the parent's own the child? Is the child a slave?

There are conditional property purchases, for example off the top of my head the law permits you to purchase tobacco conditionally that you dont onsell it to minors. But the tobacco is still your property.

Thank you, that is an excellent example.

Yes, he dealt falsely with her by on-selling her. She is in a higher category of slave than a war captive - but a slave nonetheless.

No, he can't sell her at all. She was supposed to be "designated" in the family. She is "redeemded" because he did not "designate" her. Not "designating" her is dealing falsely "with her". Meaning, the "owner" had made a legally binding agreement "with her". That does not describe property, that describes an employee.

I disagree, in Australia if you are cruel to the animals owned by you they can be seized. One could say that kind of like a higher class of cattle she has certain rights, but is owned nonetheless.

That's true. Good example. What those "certain rights" are, is what determines whether or not she is property. For example, SW Licensing. I pay for SW, but for the most part, I don't own it. I can't make changes, I can't transfer it, I can't reverse engineer it. I don't own it. I'm renting it. And obviously an employee, I'm paying for their time and labor, but I don't own them.

Quite simply the fact that the law doesn't require her consent to the conditional sale, it requires her father's consent.

And, if it does require her consent? if it requires both father and daughter to consent? Doesnt that sound like a traditional marriage proposal?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yup. And so are children. But they're not slaves or property. Sometimes it's useful in law to describe them as property.

If someone accidentally runs over a child in a crosswalk where you are; what happens when the court finds the driver negligent? Who gets the payout for damages? If it's the parents, why do they get anything? They don't own the child? The child is not property?

When are children "transferred?"
Children are not owned as property. If we changed our example to me getting hit and killed in a crosswalk, and my significant other gets the payout because I'm dead, that doesn't mean my significant other ever owned me as property. It's the same for a child.

 

[dybmh]

When are children "transferred?"

Child custody - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

How to Transfer Child Custody

Learn how to transfer custody of your child by creating a guardianship, modifying a child custody order, or giving up parental rights.

www.nolo.com

Children are not owned as property. If we changed our example to me getting hit and killed in a crosswalk, and my significant other gets the payout because I'm dead, that doesn't mean my significant other ever owned me as property. It's the same for a child.

Correct, so, legally there is a reason to treat a person as property ( their lives are given monetary value and paid out in case of loss ). But the person is not actually owned by the person receiving the payout.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Child custody - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

How to Transfer Child Custody

Learn how to transfer custody of your child by creating a guardianship, modifying a child custody order, or giving up parental rights.

www.nolo.com

Correct, so, legally there is a reason to treat a person as property ( their lives are given monetary value and paid out in case of loss ). But the person is not actually owned by the person receiving the payout.

"Custody" of a child is not a transfer of property. Nor is it a sale of property. Nor does it indicate that the child is property.

 

[dybmh]

"Custody" of a child is not a transfer of property. Nor is it a sale of property. Nor does it indicate that the child is property.

I know. That's the point. The law treats the child as property, but it is not property.

 

[danieldemol]

Something I've mentioned several times. There are times when people are considered property by the law and others and it is not immoral, nor is the person property. But they are treated as property because it's useful in a legal context.

1) Custody of a child
2) Payout for damages

Where you are, if someone runs over a child, if the court determines the driver is at fault, who receives the payout? It's the parents / guardians, correct? Why do they do this? The child is being treated as property, but, do the parent's own the child? Is the child a slave?

According to my understanding, (2) is not payment for the lost property being the child, it is payment for loss of potential lifetime earnings and income, and payment for psychological damage caused to the parent by the loss of a child.
I agree that in (1) the child is treated similar to property, but the purpose of that is to protect the child, not to engage for example in sexual relations with them nor to use them as child labour, so the context is clearly different to Exodus 21:7-11 (inclusive).

No, he can't sell her at all. She was supposed to be "designated" in the family. She is "redeemded" because he did not "designate" her. Not "designating" her is dealing falsely "with her". Meaning, the "owner" had made a legally binding agreement "with her". That does not describe property, that describes an employee.

I think we are getting a little lost here divorcing words from their contexts, so it may be helpful to re-quote Exodus 21:7-11 (RSV) to remind us of what is going on;

'7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[a] 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. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.'

So the "master" being the person the daughter is *transferered* to decides whether she be "designated" as a wife for either "for himself" or "for his son", but if she was a free woman why is it not up to her to decide whether she prefers to marry the man or his son? Why is it up to "her master" to decide who she marrys? And why if he does not do any of these three things is there even an issue of her going "out" (which I understand to mean going free) "without payment of money" if she is a free person right from the start?

His dealing faithlessly "with her" is in the form of not being pleased with her after he has designated her to himself as a wife, and there is nothing which says this is an "agreement with her", rather the agreement is between the father and the master.

ETA: I think you are misunderstanding the English phrase "dealt with"/deal with. I asked google "define deal with" and the top definition that came up was from merriam-webster which states;
'to do something about (a person or thing that causes a problem or difficult situation) The government dealt harshly with the rebels. I'll deal with you later.'
Source: Definition of DEAL WITH.

IOW it doesn't necessarily imply an agreement has been made, it can simply mean doing something about a person or thing. It is a phrase whose meaning changes with context.
End of edit.

That's true. Good example. What those "certain rights" are, is what determines whether or not she is property. For example, SW Licensing. I pay for SW, but for the most part, I don't own it. I can't make changes, I can't transfer it, I can't reverse engineer it. I don't own it. I'm renting it. And obviously an employee, I'm paying for their time and labor, but I don't own them.

Are you referring to software here? I believe that would simply be another example of a conditional sale.
As for an employee, you are paying *them* for what their time and labor produce you, not paying their *father* to give you the right to decide whether you wish to marry them to yourself or your son.

And, if it does require her consent? if it requires both father and daughter to consent? Doesnt that sound like a traditional marriage proposal?

I consider it an irrelevant hypothetical in this case as I believe Exodus 21:7-11 does not require the consent of the daughter.

In my opinion.

 

[joelr]

Can scientists be mistaken, or do you view them as infallible?

Scientists make mistakes. Dr Joel Baden isn't a scientist, he's a historical scholar who now works at Yale Divinity.
B.A. Yale University, 1999 (Judaic Studies)
M.A. University of Chicago, 2002 (Northwest Semitics)
Ph.D. Harvard University, 2007 (Hebrew Bible)

His views in the matters discussed are not debated but are consensus because the evidence is far too strong. All archaeologists and historians agree that Israel is originally displaced canaanites. There are many lines of evidence.

The Bible says Israel practice false worship - worshiping gods like Baal.
So, scientists finding a temple of Baal in Lachish, or any place for that matter, does not mean it is automatically Canaanite, does it.
The Israelites went very far in their apostasy.

Baal Cycle was used in writing Genesis. At Temples a goddess was commonly worshipped, Ashera or Astarte.
Archaeologists believe early Israel was polytheistic and later when the OT was finally written 600 BCE the story was of an Israel that the writers wanted it to be, not how it actually was.
The evidence that Israelites came from Canaan is conclusive, they left and formed small communities in the hill regions but still were Canaanite people. Their language slowly developed into proto-Canaanite and then early Hebrew. We see a branching out from Canaan towards the south, and all forms of Canaanite relics until way later when Israel came together and united under Philistine pressure and developed full Hebrew.

It's very suspicious that you believe the Bible but completely ignore the highest trained and qualified scholars who follow actual evidence and are trained to know the phases of Hebrew, Canaanite culture, and others and can read the most original form of the OT. Your only thoughts are "well they could be wrong....?" You don't even know who or what titles they hold? Yet english speaking non-experts who just happen to share your beliefs are more interesting?

Actually speaking of Baal, Isaiah uses the Baal cycle as a source for a Yahweh story:


Was Genesis "Stolen" from Pagan Myths?

38:53 examples from scripture and Baal Cycle

 

[nPeace]

Scientists make mistakes. Dr Joel Baden isn't a scientist, he's a historical scholar who now works at Yale Divinity.
B.A. Yale University, 1999 (Judaic Studies)
M.A. University of Chicago, 2002 (Northwest Semitics)
Ph.D. Harvard University, 2007 (Hebrew Bible)

His views in the matters discussed are not debated but are consensus because the evidence is far too strong. All archaeologists and historians agree that Israel is originally displaced canaanites. There are many lines of evidence.




Baal Cycle was used in writing Genesis. At Temples a goddess was commonly worshipped, Ashera or Astarte.
Archaeologists believe early Israel was polytheistic and later when the OT was finally written 600 BCE the story was of an Israel that the writers wanted it to be, not how it actually was.
The evidence that Israelites came from Canaan is conclusive, they left and formed small communities in the hill regions but still were Canaanite people. Their language slowly developed into proto-Canaanite and then early Hebrew. We see a branching out from Canaan towards the south, and all forms of Canaanite relics until way later when Israel came together and united under Philistine pressure and developed full Hebrew.

It's very suspicious that you believe the Bible but completely ignore the highest trained and qualified scholars who follow actual evidence and are trained to know the phases of Hebrew, Canaanite culture, and others and can read the most original form of the OT. Your only thoughts are "well they could be wrong....?" You don't even know who or what titles they hold? Yet english speaking non-experts who just happen to share your beliefs are more interesting?

Actually speaking of Baal, Isaiah uses the Baal cycle as a source for a Yahweh story:


Was Genesis "Stolen" from Pagan Myths?

38:53 examples from scripture and Baal Cycle

You put too much faith in your scholars, Joel.
They don't hold the key to truth, you know.

 

[Trailblazer]

The proof is, there is no proof. Nothing. Na da.

That's actually true. There is no proof, only evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

What objective test will tell us whether any claimed proof is a "spiritual" proof or not?

What objective test will tell us whether any claimed "spiritual proof" is an accurate statement about reality or not?

None. I gotta be careful as I can see I am agreeing with all the atheists and none of the believers.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why is proof so important to some people? Seems like a wild goose chase to me.

That is a *WINNER* but since we no longer have the option.....
It is more than a wild goose chase since you could finally find the goose but nobody is ever going to find God and I kinda like it that way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Red pill, blue pill. Do you want to live in the real world, or a fantasy?

True, but it is still a wild goose chase because you will never find the God.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Scientists make mistakes. Dr Joel Baden isn't a scientist, he's a historical scholar who now works at Yale Divinity.
B.A. Yale University, 1999 (Judaic Studies)
M.A. University of Chicago, 2002 (Northwest Semitics)
Ph.D. Harvard University, 2007 (Hebrew Bible)

His views in the matters discussed are not debated but are consensus because the evidence is far too strong. All archaeologists and historians agree that Israel is originally displaced canaanites. There are many lines of evidence.




Baal Cycle was used in writing Genesis. At Temples a goddess was commonly worshipped, Ashera or Astarte.
Archaeologists believe early Israel was polytheistic and later when the OT was finally written 600 BCE the story was of an Israel that the writers wanted it to be, not how it actually was.
The evidence that Israelites came from Canaan is conclusive, they left and formed small communities in the hill regions but still were Canaanite people. Their language slowly developed into proto-Canaanite and then early Hebrew. We see a branching out from Canaan towards the south, and all forms of Canaanite relics until way later when Israel came together and united under Philistine pressure and developed full Hebrew.

It's very suspicious that you believe the Bible but completely ignore the highest trained and qualified scholars who follow actual evidence and are trained to know the phases of Hebrew, Canaanite culture, and others and can read the most original form of the OT. Your only thoughts are "well they could be wrong....?" You don't even know who or what titles they hold? Yet english speaking non-experts who just happen to share your beliefs are more interesting?

Actually speaking of Baal, Isaiah uses the Baal cycle as a source for a Yahweh story:


Was Genesis "Stolen" from Pagan Myths?

38:53 examples from scripture and Baal Cycle

Informative frubal.

I always enjoy reading your posts, Joel. I think that your posts are insightful and very informative.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Proofs" imply objective evidence. There aren't any.

*WINNER*

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's actually true. There is no proof, only evidence.

Not even that. There is however, vast evidences of people's imagination though.

 

[Trailblazer]

All you can see is the test? Wow.
I am so glad RF is not the only place we find scientists.

I'll spell it out for you then. It is self evident. It is not a personal experience. Do I have to put my hand in a sharks mouth to know what the results are? Is that my personal expectation? No. It is not... and we all know that.

So telling me about personal experience, is a strawman.
I said...
This is proof for me, and it can be scientifically tested.
All that is required, is to take all the people who read, study, appreciate, and apply the principles in the Bible, along with thousands of other people, and evaluate the results.
Then I mentioned the features of such a test, and the limitations on science, where that is concerned.

So the focus was never on the test.
Then I said... So, while we have the proof, and it be really proof, science cannot verify it. Nor can atheists disprove it.
We have the proof. We don't need science for that.

Everyone who was not born yesterday, and knows what a shark is, do not need a scientist to tell them what a shark does, do they?
Science can't tell them if the shark will bite them either, so we don't need a peer reviewd paper telling us anything that we can clearly see.
This Scientism worship is really becoming an annoying beast. I look forward to when God kills that beast.

We hold these truths to be self evident...

Promiscuity in adults
Having multiple sexual partners is linked with risks such as maternal deaths and complications, cancers, sexually transmitted infections, alcohol, and substance use, and social condemnation in some societies.

Effects of human sexual promiscuity - Wikipedia​

Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis.

Health Effects | Smoking and Tobacco Use - CDC​

Drug use can lead to dependence and addiction, injury and accidents, health problems, sleep issues, and more. Drug use affects you and those close to you.

Know the Risks of Using Drugs | SAMHSA​

Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis.

Health Effects | Smoking and Tobacco Use - CD​

Violence a global public health problem - SciELO​

Community violence can include physical assaults between young people, sexual violence in the workplace and neglect of older people

Profanity | World Problems & Global Issue​

Union of International Associations
http://encyclopedia.uia.org › problem
Profanity. Other Names: Swearing Bad language. Indecent speech. Foul language. Vulgar language. Verbal obscenity. Swear words.


Surely you can post the contrast, can't you?
If you can't, please let me know.

*USEFUL*