₦airaland Forum

GODAKPAN:
Maturity was today, I rather got interest instead of capital. I have never ask for reinvestment. Please good people has anyone experience this. Am not in town to get to the bank. Don't even know the rate. But is stated that it's for 182days

Please send an email to the bank for confirmation. It's likely they reinvested.

yinka2011:
here is the result from todays Primary Market Auction from easykobo

link is here https://www.easykobo.com/News.aspx?id=19953

Thank you for always coming through with this. God bless you.

And just in case you're forgetting your own arguments, the following are claims you've made that I have debunked. You may want to dig up any of mine that you think you debunked too:

1. All non Hebrew slaves were to be permanent slaves. DEBUNKED!

2. Slaves were maltreated by their masters/ Bible permitted maltreatment of slaves.
DEHUNKED!

3. Apart from slaves and hired workers, there were bond servants.
WRONG, DEBUNKED!

4. If I own a slave I can beat him to death and get away with it.

WRONG, DEBUNKED!

If a man blinds his slave, the instruction is that the slave becomes free from the master, what do you think it should have been? That the master be blinded too?

Well, in this case, the first thing you should figure is:

Based on the Bible's judgment on the matter, is the Blinding being commended or is it condemned.

Obviously, it's condemned.

Now, why shouldn't the master's eye too be blinded?

In this case, he traded his ownership of the slave's time for his own eye.
The slave gets his time back, the master keeps his eye.
But obviously, the act would be n accident, and it's already judged against.

CuteMadridista:
Its different hahaha

I've posted this before and I would again

If you beat a freeman and he's injured you're obligated to pay him in the money he lost from not working and you're to take care of him by paying his nursing expenses too

A slave however has no such benefits as if he dies a few days later he's dead and gone. nothing there says you're obligated to nurse him back to health

Also if you blind them, you'll be punished by letting him go free


it seems your arguments have all been exhausted. Dalaman couldn't have given you the attention I've given you with the patience I did cuz he's allergic to running round in circles like you're doing

Didn't you read my post on why the slave master doesn't have to pay for his slave work hours? He owns the hours. It is said that the beater of a free man must provide for his recovery, the same doesn't have to be said of a slave master, because he already is responsible for providing for his slave.

You're the one who argues shallow.

And when a point you make is refuted, you divert the subject.

In the case of the freeman, he naturally isn't his beater's responsibility, hence the need to state clearly that in this instance, the beater should fend for the victim.

For a slave, the master already has a responsibility to fend for him, hence the reason why it wasn't stated.

You're wrong in saying if a slave dies from his master's beatings after a few days, he's dead and gone, as thought there won't be penalty on master, this is the third time I'm referring you to the verse you quoted, the master gets punished.

CuteMadridista:
Hehehehe

21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

By calling the beating an abuse in verse 20, what's the Bible's stance on it.
19. Someone who beats a free man is exempt from punishment.
21. Someone who beats a slave is exempt from punishment.

Can't you see that the rights of a free man who suffers beatings are no different from those of a slave?

CuteMadridista:
Again, you're focusing on Joseph while ignoring the rest. your use context when it suits you and drop it when it doesn't

Joseph was favoured so no matter what his level was he would've still been made prime minister infact the slavery part were stepping stones to him becoming prime minister


As for "Brilliant ones taken by Europeans yet not put in high positions" could it be due to the fact that Yahweh didn't favour them? this is a no point abeg, let's focus on another

But not just Joseph now,
Since the slavery isn't the core context of the Bible, only a handful of details about slave/master relationship can be found, and all of them point to the fact that slave master had good regard for their slaves.

The beating you focused on was condemned by the Bible as the Bible called it an abuse.

I have also given you an instance where Abraham would have left all his wealth to a slave as his heir.

You on the other hand can't even find a place where it was recorded that a slave master maltreated his slave and you're making unfounded claims.

CuteMadridista:
Show where its written that if he dies 3 days later the master would be tried for murder, I'll wait

The same verse you initially quoted now.

Exo 21:20
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies under his abuse(Take note that the bible condemns the beating here, calling it an abuse), the owner MUST be punished (footnote: must suffer Vengeance).

CuteMadridista:
are you still maintaining biblical slavery is same as employer employee?

That was an overwhelming exception and it was Yahweh that directly favoured him. it would be dishonest to make it sound like its not a one off
Really? where was this written?

They might've just been sent to die, even the military today do that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000
even gave rise to "McNamara fallacy"


I'm yet to see any difference


I think you gave it your best shot and the thread is now on diminishing returns

However I want to ask, if you were in the USA or England at the time when slavery is legal and you want them to totally abolish it, what Bible verses would you quote totally abolishing it?

The point is, for the king to have made such a proposal for a slave, clearly slaves weren't seen in the class of animals.

The implication of God's influence in that scenario was the fact that he gave the King a problem nobody else could solve.

But if it was that they regarded slaves as animals, their gifts wouldn't have received much reckoning.

Would you say there weren't brilliant ones among slaves taken by the Britons? Why couldn't it be normal for such to be brought up to some leadership roles?

CuteMadridista:
Hehehehe I'm loving this swaying here and there hehehehe

In case of a free man, the beater compensates for lost work hours AND arranges for full recovery. which means he'll have to foot his medical bills too. you left that part out for a reason

A slave however has no compensation, nothing in it says his injuries are to be taken care of by his master and if he dies from his injuries days later its all good riddance he'll simply take another slave to beat to an inch of death again and its all good

Also if you blind their eyes, your punishment is that you simply set them free

You're wrong.

Should the slave die days after, the master will be tried for murder.

Seeing to the slave's recovery would be a given for the master. Remember, he needs his service.

CuteMadridista:
AwesomeJ, let me ask you a question

The type of slavery that the white people did to us, was it good?

It'd be silly of me to jump to conclusions on that.

I have the assumptions that the way those slaves from Africa was through Kidnap by the local chiefs, and they were treated like animals rather than employees.

If those assumptions are true, then I conclude that it was terrible.

But slavery in the Bible was not.

A slave became a prime minister in the world's largest economy at the time at only 30.
Was there any slave that even became a member of Parliament, let alone prime minister when Britons took slaves?

While Abraham was childless, his heir would have been one of his slaves, was it that way with the Britons, did they regard slaves so much as to put them in the class of an heir?

When Lot's city was capture by 5 kings, Abraham's slaves about 300 in all went against them and conquered.
Did the Britons build such a cordial and healthy relationship with their slaves, as to advance against enemies with slaves being a significant portion of the force? 300 men fought against 5 kings and won, can you picture how well nourished they must have been? can you also imagine how much of positive motivation and morale they must have had based on how well they were treated?

Should a prominent Briton want to carry out an important assignment, would he have delegated a slave to it, according him the freedom to go with whatever things he chose. That's referring to Abraham's servant on his hunt for Rebekah.

So you see, the two slavery forms aren't quite the same, the latter is a bastardized version of the former.

CuteMadridista:
King, The cupbearer is your property and you can pass them unto me (your son) as "inheritance" but you must not do your personal chef this way

Now tell me what that also means? it seems you're not even reading through verses before tackling them, you're focusing on inanities while leaving the main points. you're reducing the big picture to the little one that makes sense to you. What else makes a man a inheritance that can be passed to children and children's children?

The point we're making is that it isn't stated that non Hebrew slaves must be perpetual slaves.

About the statement you made.

It actually sounds more like this:
King, The cupbearer is your property and you can pass them unto me (your son) as "inheritance" but you must not do your personal chef this way
BECAUSE THEY ARE MY OWN "INHERITANCE" Lev 26:42

Have you seen the balance now?

CuteMadridista:
If you're a slave, I can beat you to a morbidly injured position and get away with it if you survive for more than 2 days

It seems you're splitting hairs here, if I shoot you with a bullet and you're bedridden for a week before finally dying from your wounds, who killed you? am I the one or the bed killed you? you seem to be focusing on irrelevant grammar while leaving the main things untouched

If you shoot someone and he survives, no matter how long it takes, nobody charges you for murder, which is what the verses say.

The beating isn't exclusive to slaves. You're making it sound as if the slave gets beaten just cos he's a slave. That's wrong, because the very instruction before that of the slave talked about a free man beaten and seriously injured by his fellow man.

In both cases, so long as the victims don't die, the Bible is saying you shouldn't kill their beaters.

In the case of a free man, a beater compensates him for his lost work hours, nothing more. In the case of a slave, the master already paid for his work hours, and owns them, hence the reason why he doesn't have to compensate the slave as he would a free man.

Clear enough picture if you choose to discard your prejudice.

CuteMadridista:
actually you're the one bringing shallow arguments upon shallow arguments, where did I say they "MUST".isn't that a strawman you constructed up for yourself? could you quote where I said they MUST?

and yeah, if you want to make a point of difference by referring to an analogy about maths textbook then you're making my point for me or can you please look for something that's equal to humans to use as example?

1. You can pass your textbook to your kids.
2. You MUST pass your textbook to your kids.

Which of the above statements mean that the textbook will perpetually remain in service with your family?
The second one obviously.

So when you quote a verse that says " You can pass down your slave" to mean that the slave will perpetually be in your family, it means you interpreted the statement as "you must pass down your slave"

Just to indulge you,

Someone says to the King.

1. "You can pass down your cupbearer to the Prince"

2. "You must pass down your cupbearer to the prince"

Only the 2nd statement means that the cupbearer will always be their staff.

CuteMadridista:
Your last post simply asked who a bondservant is and the question is not relevant as the bible verses I gave are simply showing the difference between slaves - master and employee-employer while you're trying to make them the same things. Bible is very clear in the difference

There is nothing like bond servant in the verses you quoted. A slave and a hired worker that's all. You didn't comprehend the passage well, and I have explained it to you.

There's only bound in that passage, not bound servant.

The bound there means foreign or temporary resident.

Now, don't say again that you can beat someone to death, and they survive after two days.

Common sense makes it clear that dying and surviving are mutually exclusive. So why keep saying somebody dies and he survives?

Look at your own argument,
A statement says, " You can pass on slaves to your children "
You wrongly interpreted it to mean "You MUST pass slaves to your children"

Then I gave you a similar statement to show you that "You may" doesn't mean "You must"

You're saying that I reduced human to maths textbook.

This is obviously the shallowest argument you have put up.

CuteMadridista:
The onus is on you to show where it's stated! inability to do that proves they were not!! also you're ignoring the fact that the Israelites got majority of their slaves from conquering villages by giving them 2 options before proceeding

a. Fight us and probably die

b. Surrender and survive but you'd become our slaves

Deuteronomy 20:10-15

You're yet to support your own stance with the Bible

Do you have any other rule? mind you this only applies to Israelite slaves NOT non Hebrews so you're just concentrating on something beside the point

Read very well, you can beat them to death as long as they survive for a day or two after the beating!!!!!


That ONLY APPLIES BETWEEN ISRAELITES TO ISRAELITES! NOT SLAVES TO MASTER!! maybe you should take your own advice and read the context rather than googling
you do

Either way its YOUR PROPERTY and reducing Humans to the level of Maths Textbook makes my point for me haha

This is no business of mine, bring on more gymnastics

This post sounds like you just quoted for the sake of it. Come on now.

I don't have to define a bound servant, because first off, you came up with the concept on your own, so shouldn't you be the one defining what you mean by it.

Then secondly I have said that the concept doesn't exist at all based on biblical record. check my last post.

@ Cutie,

It's the version you're reading that makes you think there are SLAVES, HIRED SERVANTS and BOUND SERVANTS.

But you're wrong, and I'll help you.

The only adjective used for the word "servant" there is "hired". The word bound isn't an adjective for servant as you're confusing it to be. It's a word on its own, and it refers to temporary residents.

You may read another English version to confirm that.

So, obviously, there were only two categories of workers at those times: the casual hired workers, and the long term slaves. You can't find any other.

CuteMadridista:
I'm getting tired of this dishonesty
Because it wasn't stated?

No matter how sincere it is, its more due to wanting to be with his wife and children than love of his master

You can beat them to death so long they survive for more than 2 days after the beating
OGA, bible made the difference clear between hired servants and slaves. its you that needs to read your Bible

Exodus 12:43-45 (NRSV)
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised;
45 no bound or hired servant may eat of it.

Leviticus 22:10-11 (NRSV)
10 No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. No bound or hired servant of the priest shall eat of the sacred donations; 11 but if a priest acquires anyone by purchase, the person may eat of them; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food.

These passages show that there is a difference between someone who is hired, someone who is a bonded servant, and someone who is bought, paid for, and owned.
Non Hebrews slaves can be passe to children and children's children as inheritance. common sense tells us they would've died or close to death by the time they're passed to the children's children so yeah they're there for life except the Hebrews who are there for a time


any more gymnastics?

There you go again, making all funny assumptions.

1. if it wasn't stated, then you're obviously just making it up.

2. you're only expressing your opinion on what you think the slaves motives would be. Doesn't mean it's even close to being true.

3. You can beat them to death so long as they survive? What's that? does someone already beaten to death still survive?


But I'll help you, I have mentioned to you that the scripture is only spelling out when a person can be charged with murder.

exodus 21:18-20

18.When men quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or fist, and the injured man does not die but is confined to bed,
19. if he can later get up and walk outside....

That's where the slave beating regulation came from.

It's a good thing that you should see that there was also thesame regulation for two individuals who aren't slaves.

So the scripture there is not saying slaves should be beaten, just as it isn't saying men should quarrel and one should hit the other with a stone.

Comprehend the context bro, it's merely giving what liabilities people are subjected to for the actions they commit.

4. Define a bound servant.

5. if I say, "You can pass your Maths textbook down to your kids"
Does it mean that your maths textbook MUST be passed down to your kids? Sure it doesn't.

The phrase there is "You may"/ " You can"

The interpretation you're bringing is "You MUST"

That's why your argument is faulty.

Note that I now have a bias for responding to your post versus the other guy's, because he talks funny sometimes. Maybe Spartan would be able to cope with him.

dalaman:
Will you keep quiet and stop telling lies. I am tired of your dishonesty. Where does it say that hired workers are causal workers while slaves are long term workers. SHOW ME FROM THE BIBLE.

Slaves had no wages at all. They were not allowed to be paid any wages.
Even the bible God warned the people not to treat their poor Israeli brothers that are poor and sold themselves to them as slaves. Hired workers simply means workers that work and get paid, slaves do not work and get paid and according to the Jewish encyclopedia which I made reference to ob the other thread , slaves were not allowed to own properties. Show us where foreign slaves the ones that Yahweh warned the Jews not to treat each other like that are paid wages from the bible.

You're sounding more and more like an idiot, and I should really think that you are.

If you didn't already lose half your reasoning faculty, would it be so difficult to realize that someone whose hired to work for you for a day is a casual worker, whereas the one who serves you for years is a long termer.

Make sure, this is the very last time you'll open your gutters to use silly words in quoting me, if you still want me to regard you as a human worth some reckoning.

dalaman:
Where does it say that slaves were involved in decision regarding who is to buy them or who they are to be sold to? Are they also involved in any decision regarding how they are to be paid or how they are to be passed on as inheritance? What decisions do slaves make regarding themselves? Show us the injunction and what it says from the bible.

What's up with you now?
Quote where I said slaves were involved in such decisions, and I'll give you Biblical reference.

You on the other hand, are making claims on things you don't not know for sure, saying slaves weren't involved in the decisions, hence my reason for asking you to quote where it was stated that no slaves was or could ever be involved in the decisions that pertain to their slavery deal.

I'll help you,

Joseph for instance when sold by his brothers to the midianite most likely wasn't consulted, because the act was one of wickedness on the brothers' part. Their initial plot was to even kill him. So obviously that was an act of wickedness.

When the Midianites sold him to Potiphar, you don't know whether or not he was involved in talks with Potiphar regarding the terms of his service. Concluding that he wasn't is purely a baseless assumption.

Or look at Lev 26:47
If a foreigner or temporary resident living among you prospers, but your brother (Hebrew) living near him becomes destitute and sells himself to the foreigner living among you, or to a member of the foreigner's clan,


Wouldn't it be illogical to think that the slave in this context who chose to sell himself wasn't involved in the decision?

CuteMadridista:
Such contracts are illegal but let's assume they're legal, Messi needs to sign it separately it doesn't get bundled with his football contract

a Non Hebrew slave that's bought and sold however doesn't even have his consent valued in this case. he's the whole package

also if Barcelona as a club gives Messi a wife or girlfriend, a child the girlfriend bears belong to Messi, the girl also has her own independence and Barca can't control her


let's see another twist you'll pulls again


Bullsheet!!!!!

4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to
God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

Obviously he can decide to bear all the pain and maltreatments just to stay with his wife and children while declaring to love his master but not really meaning it

Those who don't leave "good jobs nowadays" is obvious they're not leaving good jobs NOT staying at the job because the employer would claim ownership of their wives and children if they leave

By "open mind" you mean a "dishonest one" like the one you're using right now eh?

they had servants, hired men AND slaves with them being differentiated and different rules on each. Dalaman has already shown this in one of his previous posts here so don't add to the dishonesty

You're basically making unfounded assumptions.
1. Where did you get that a non Hebrew slave did not have his consent valued?
2. How would you know that a slave's claim of love for his master isn't sincere?
3. Give an instance of such pain and maltreatment you mentioned.
4. Servants were slaves too. You thinking they're different explains why you're confused about the whole biblical concept on slavery.

5.Don't keep making any funny reference to someone else's post, I've asked you to make the post, please do, even if you have to copy and paste. Where is it stated that non Hebrew slaves must be slaves perpetually?

vaxx:
what you are doing here is mental gymnastics, there is clearly endorsement of human dehumanization in the bible(in form of slavery)but you can still argue it out by telling us if it is relative or absolute when those laws were pass ,instead of elevating it to the modern day treatment of employees. this is broad-day lies. likewise , i am also not interested in debunking Christianity on this thread. argue it with the atheist .

If by the next century, Clubs no longer buy football players but rather employ them.

If someone from that time reads articles s about how players were bought and sold, and concludes that the govt of today which allowed such a practice must have been cruel, would he be right on that conclusion?

Now, if someone else chooses to observe the relationship more keenly, and finds that the players weren't actually subjected to any dehumanizing act, but rather a lifestyle of luxury, would you be right to say all he's doing is mental gymnastics.

Don't argue in ignorance bro. That you don't know something doesn't make it false.

I have given you scenarios portraying how slaves were treated at the time. So if you think otherwise, dig up any scenario that confirms your stance.

vaxx:
i perceive intentional lies on this thread, slavery is simply dehumanization and can never be compared to present day employment. how can you compare a human resources manager to a slave master?

Even the name slave is far more derogatory, it's a mental and psychological one. This is case where the master truly believes he's superior and that slaves are his property and outsiders who are alien by origin, while the slaves believes he's no more than a servant, and lives believing he's inferior throughout his slave-hood. slaves do not enjoy the same equality statures with his master.

i think christian should argue on this part, if the biblical instruction on slavery is relative or absolute to society when it was given instead of playing mental gymnastic that is obvious. it will have been more interesting.

Go read the story of how Abraham's servant got Isaac his wife.
Check out how it was reported that Laban- an heir was all over him. Obviously whom Laban saw was a very big boy, and not just some folk with chronic inferiority complex as you suppose.

Or check out Joseph, he was CEO.

Try, try really hard to come up with one story from the Bible that shows slaves as treated horribly or as animals.

CuteMadridista:
I just saw this now

absolutely not! even Yahweh said they mustn't treat fellow Israelites the way they would treat slaves

football players sit and negotiate with the club, they even employ expert agents to make sure their interests are met and they aren't fleeced

The player negotiates a clause upon which his contract can be terminated. they can negotiate that they have the right to leave for peanuts if they're not played for a particular number of minutes or apps

They negotiate bonuses in terms of goals, cleansheets, trophies etc all these don't apply to biblical non Hebrew slaves who's opinion is not sought

if injured, the club takes full care of the player and the club can't beat them to death

also the player's children don't belong to the club, neither do the wives they marry even if the club has a hand in their marrying the woman


The only perspective I got is that your dishonesty is getting too much to bear

Note that the reference to football players is the fact that you people think the fact that slaves were called properties of their masters, meant they were subjected to inhumane treatments. I gave the illustration, that an ignorant person who hears that clubs sell and loan out football players, would also think that players were treated as commodities and so were experiencing inhumane treatments. Just as the guy who assumes a funny thought regarding player/club relationship is wrong, so are you guys who assume funny thoughts on the slave/master relationship regulated in the Bible.

It was a long term labour contract, everyone including Hebrews could be sold into it. God said if a non Hebrew wants to sell himself as a slave, Hebrews could buy him, but if a Hebrew wants to do same, his fellow Hebrew should rather employ him on a casual basis. Do you know the reason he gave for that?
He said the Israelites were already his own slaves, and so if you want their service, it'd have to be on a non permanent basis.

This should be clear enough right?

OtemAtum:
Football players are paid huge sums of money and they can even sue the football club they are playing for, terminate their contracts at any point and some of them even earn more than the coaches who are parts of the employment committee. Slaves are not paid salaries.They are muzzled, pierced in the ears and used for all sorts of terrible jobs like animals

Quote a place in the Bible where slaves were treated as animals. you're basically making funny assumptions.

dalaman:
Even their bible clearly differentiates btw slaves and hired workers.


39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.

This verse clearly shows that there is a difference btw slaves and hired workers. But this or resident dishonest apologist are trying to tell us that we blind.

What do you think that difference is?

It's the difference between a daily labourer (casual staff), and a full-time long term staff.

if all workers were hired workers, then there would be no need to used the adjective hired.

But workers were mainly in two categories then:
Hired(casual);
Slaves( long term)

The casualnes of hired workers is why you don't find much regulations regarding them, other than the fact the they must be paid their wages.

dalaman:
Let's talk about Joseph. Potiphar was an Egyptian and Joseph according to the story was favoured by God and his master treated him well as a result of that favour. He was treated differently from the way slaves were treated because of the favor from God accordingto the story.

The Jews were badly treated by the Egyptians as slaves so much so that Moses was sent to set them free.

Why do you just make silly assumptions?
was it stated that Joseph's exceptional treatment meant inhumane treatment to other slaves?

For the Israelites, it wasn't just slavery that caused their ill treatment. it was a case of oppression, which could have been meted to anyone slaves or not.

Don't Nigerian leaders oppress the masses? is it cos the masses are slaves to them?

And if you read where God foretold Abraham about the israelites stay in Egypt, God said, "they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years". if slavery inherently had oppression, there wouldn't have been any need to say " enslaved and oppressed " it's cos the two are separate things that necessitated the use of both words.
You'll find that statement in Gen 15:13

CuteMadridista:
just saw this part you added

absolutely not! the player has the right not to be passed to the other club! if Madrid decides that they want to loan Kovačić to Arsenal and arsenal agrees. Madrid would still have to go to Kovačić to tell him that arsenal want to have him for a year and state the terms. Kovačić, after reading the terms, may still say he doesn't want to leave on loan and would stay at the club or tell the club to find another club for him or say he wants to leave to arsenal on a permanent basis. all these show the kind of final power the player has and nothing can be done without his consent

But non Hebrew slaves has no such right, the owner simply passes him unto his children without his consent and the children passes him unto their Father's grandchildren

You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
- Leviticus 25:46

so yeah the difference is huge, stop the dishonesty

Whatever rights the player has is definitely such as had been defined while he was entering the original contract with the FC, if he had signed to terms that didn't give him those rights, maybe due to the attractiveness of the cash, he wouldn't have any such rights.

Meanwhile, if you read that entire chapter 26 of Lev you quoted, the points I have been making are obviously spelt out.
1. A slave gets his payment upfront, and that's equivalent to wages/salary.
2. Slaves could be redeemed by their close relatives.
3. Slaves who prosper could redeem their own selves.
4. Redemption involved returning money to the slave master, in exchange for the slave getting back his freedom which he earlier sold.
5. The calculation of a slave's price was daily wage * number of days in the slavery contract. Doesn't this yet confirm to you that it was basically employment?
Na was for you guys o.

6. God said every Israelite was his own slave. That should make it obvious to you that when he says slaves he doesn't mean those to be subjected to constant inhumane treatments

If the entire chap. 26 is too long, just read from vs 47-55.
But reading the full chapter gives you a broader perspective.

dalaman:
Not true, contracts do get terminated regardless of clauses. Many players havebeen paid off by their teams and their contracts terminated. Some players refuse to train with their teams and force their teamsto terminate their contracts. Players have a say when they are being loaned out. If they don't want to go no club can loan them against their wish.



Players are not treated as commodities because they have the right to say if they are going out or not. They have a say in what ever transaction they are invovked in and they are heavily paid usually. They are consulted before any move is made. How many slaves or commodities are consulted before they are sold out? According to the bible slaves and their kids can be passed of as inheritance to children of their masters. How many footballers are treated that way. Stop this your yeye silliness abeg.

Where did you get that slaves were not involved in decisions regarding them?

CuteMadridista:
Absolutely not! the only payment is between the seller and the buyer so only if the seller decides to have pity on the slave by giving him some change does he/she get something

Bible? Dalaman has already given those verses

You don't know this detail about the payment appropriation do you? You're merely assuming.

Quote that verse again that says all non Hebrew slaves were to forever be slaves.