₦airaland Forum

winner01:
You only repeated what dalaman said. Nothing new.

Read my reply: Even the Jewish encyclopaedia that dalaman posted, agrees that slavery was a government sanctioned contractual agreement.

You dont need to be lazy or willfully ignorant. You can read the link dalaman unintelligently posted and point out its contradictions with the bible.

The truth of God is spreading all over the world. Dey here dey cry.

Keep lying.

At the end of the day, , you would not like your son to be treated like the Jewish 'indentured servant' you like to distance away from slavery.

winner01:
But when an atheist makes 10 paragraphs, he's telling the truth?.

Ebed means slave, and the bible and jewish encyclopaedia agrees that they were more than just slaves.

U dont need to be in a haste to sound reasonable, just read and learn.

A slave is a slave. Even if you feed your slaves jollof rice and chicken everyday, they are still slaves.

The bible clearly states that slaves are the property of their masters
The bible clearly states that you can beat your slaves as long as they dont die from the beating.


My guy, go and sleep. You lies are turning more christians away from christianity. Religion can not stand on logical grounds

winner01:
Even before I asked you to read the article, you already concluded it was a lie and so i'm not surprised at this horribly lame attempt to discharge yourself.
People may not know Hebrew but they have the internet which has several language dictionaries.





The op opines that: Simply because as we will see, they were treated higher than slaves. He also gives the name of a credible Historian to support his claim. dalaman on the other hand feels he is a better historian that any christian historian.


Let me quickly point out dalaman 's mischief:

dalaman 's twist and turn:
The truth: The most popular English Bible versions rightfully translates the word "ebed" as slaves: NLV, ESV, NASB, KJV, ISV, HCSB, NET Bible, GWT, NAS, KJV 2000, AKJV et al.
What the Jewish Encyclopaedia really said: The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant" (a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3), and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery (Ex. xxi. 2-7). Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines

The dictionary meaning of the word figuratively: The adverb figuratively describes something symbolic, not actual. For example, If a friend invites you to tonight's concert but you already have plans with your family, you might say — figuratively — that your hands are tied.

The Jewish encyclopaedia recognizes that the english versions that use the word servant, make use of it figuratively.

Conclusion: dalaman intentionally abridged the statement from the Jewish Encyclopaedia to make it look as if it is in contrast with the Bible




Also, The op rightfully says:
And backs it up with solid biblical claims:If a servant who owed a debt came in with his wife, then after 6 years they both were allowed to leave together, not just one (v. 3). Exodus 21:26-27 says if a boss injured a servant, the servant was to be set free. Such abuse was not tolerated. Deuteronomy 15:16 shows servants often truly loved the leaders of the household and thought of them as family. Leviticus 25:53 says such servants were to be treated as men “hired from year to year” not “rule[d ] over ruthlessly.” They were even to be given a regular day off during the week (Exodus 23:12). Also, Israelite servants could not be sold by their bosses (Leviticus 25:42) and are even differentiated from slaves in this text since it says “they shall not be sold as slaves.” Lastly, Deuteronomy 15:13-14 affirms once a servant’s service was over after 6 years, he was not to leave empty handed. The boss was commanded to furnish him out of his flock, and with corn and wine.
What other explanation proves a contractual agreement? Even though the history regarded them as property, we can see that slavery was clearly based on a lawful mutual agreement.

dalamans simulation:


The Jewish encyclopaedia also disagrees with dalaman: [b]The duty of treating the Hebrew servant and handmaid otherwise than as slaves, and above all their retention in service for a limited time only, was deemed by the lawgiver of such importance that the subject was put next to the Decalogue at the very head of civil legislation (Ex. xxi. 2-11). It is treated in its legal bearings also (Lev. xxv. 39-54; Deut. xv. 12-18). The prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xxxiv. 8-24) denounces the permanent enslavement of Hebrew men and women by their masters as the gravest of national sins, for which the kingdom of Judah forfeits all claim to God's mercy, and justly sinks into ruin and exile.

Also In Rabbinical Literature:The Hebrew servant referred to in the Torah is of two classes: (1) he whom the court has sold without his consent; and (2) he who has willingly sold himself. The court may sell a man for theft only, as noted above. A man may sell himself (Lev. xxv. 39) because of extreme poverty, after all his means are exhausted; he should not sell himself as long as any means are left to him. He should not sell himself to a woman, nor to a convert, nor to a Gentile. Should he do so, however, even if he sells himself to a heathen temple, the sale is valid; but it then becomes the duty not only of his kinsmen, but of all Israelites, to redeem him, lest he become "swallowed up" in heathendom. The sale of a Hebrew into bondage should be made privately, not from an auction-block, nor even from the sidewalk, where other slaves are sold.
[/b]




The op also said

In Dalaman 's haste and determination to disprove the Bible, he did not realize that the verse he quoted fully supports the op :




The Jewish encyclopaedia also supports the op: [b]According to tradition, a Hebrew female may not be sold by the court for theft, nor may she sell herself; she may be sold for a bondmaid ("amah" only in the one way shown in Ex. xxi. 7: "When a man sells his daughter for a bondmaid" (A. V. "maid servant". The father has this power over his daughter only while she is a minor, that is, less than twelve years of age, or at least while she does not bear the signs of puberty; and he should use his right only in the extreme of poverty, and then as the last resort before selling himself. The sale becomes complete by the delivery of money or money's worth, or through a deed ("sheṭar" written in the father's name. The girl remains in service at most six years, like a man servant. If the jubilee arrives before the expiration of this term she is discharged by virture of that fact; or if the master dies, though he leaves a son, she goes free. She may also obtain her freedom by redemption at a reduced price, as explained above, or by a deed of emancipation given to her by her master. All this is implied in the words of the text (Deut. xv., Hebr.), "Thou shalt do likewise to thy bondmaid." But over and above all these paths to liberty she has another: as soon as her signs of puberty appear the master must marry her or must betroth her to his son, or must send her free. In case of marriage she stands as a wife on the same footing as any freewoman in Israel. By the very words of the text in Exodus the master is forbidden to sell her to an outsider (lit. "to a foreign people", either as a worker or as a wife.

In conclusion, it may be said of Hebrew man servants and bondmaids that, unlike Canaanite servants, they do not become free by reason of an assault on the part of the master which results in the loss of an eye or a tooth; but, as shown under Assault and Battery, in such a case the master is liable to them in an action for damages.[/b]



dalaman 's reply is disgraceful and does not portray an educated person. It is more disgraceful that his fellow atheists did not bother to scrutinize his claims but hurriedly and ignorantly opted to like his comment. dalaman was more concerned with disproving the bible rather than finding out the truth. He deceitfully abridged quotes from the Jewish encyclopaedia to suit his selfish claims and mislead the public.

This further proves that the op is consistent with the claims of the Bible and that of the Jewish encyclopaedia. It also proves that dalaman could hardly find a lie in the numerous claims made by the op. The few claims dalaman thought were lies have been supported by the very reference he posted. The Jewish Encyclopaedia. He did not look before leaping, just like cloudgoddess have similarly done.

It finally proves that when a piece of solid evidence shatters the notions of an atheist, they have nothing meaningful to say but to call it a lie.

When a christian makes an argument with 10 paragraphs or more, the christian is lying.

Ebed means slave. All your long epistles of lies and half-truths wont change that.


Slavery is in the bible which clearly states that slaves are the properties of the masters.

Reyginus, dblackninja, hahn, johnydon22, et al

I will be creating a thread to destroy Kingebukasblog's lies about religion and atheism........

It's going to be interesting.

Gorgeousolasco:
Lyk seriously? Abeg where did u see dat in d bible. Guess dats ur own bible version. Oga o. If u don't know anything about d bible, shut d f... Up. Pele, even English u no sabi write well, atrack ko atrock ni

First, ask yourself how Cain and Abel had children. Also ask yourself how it is possible not to be related to someone when both of you have the same dna (in the case of Adam and Eve).



And please, don't correct someone's English when you can't even bother to write properly without slang.

KingEbukasBlog:
God is the lawgiver and at that time , He permitted it . Simple

Answer my simple question . Why is consensual sex with a sibling or parent for the sake of pleasure wrong ?

Child abuse.

A boy could have been grooming and deceiving his younger sister at a young age to have incestuous Sex

A.Mother or father could also groom a young child until 18 years that incestuous SeX is good.


There is also the issue of laziness to go out of one's family or even the issue of isolation of children or family members that they have to have SeX with each other.

Cain and Abel slept with their sisters.

Adam was Eve's brother since she is his twin- her da from his rib.


No sensible person will support incest. It could lead to child abuse and deformed children.


Stop trying to atrack atheists

Reyginus:
What then is she ular philosophy?

You and your foolish questions.

Why are you just dishonest? You really have no idea what secular philosophy is about?

Reyginus:
I only feel pity for your ignorance the thread. You seem to be defending Atheism. Is Atheism now a faith or position that must be upheld?

The drunkard believes that the sober man is a fool.......

There is no evidence for god. That has always been the case for atheists.

Reyginus:
The OP is not open-minded enough to let the conversation flow. I'm willing to give him 10,000 posts if he's open-minded. And that's just a start.

Guy, why the beef?

Is it mah fault that you don't have panties to wash?

UyiIredia:
Yeah. Jon Snow punching the life out of Bolton. Epic. But the last episode was surprising. Who would have thought Tom men and Margaery would the the same day ?

What if I beat you like that? Punch you till your face flattens?

Anyway, the beating was sweet. Ramsay was an evil bastard.

Cercei is eeeeevilll

dblackninja:
Game of thrones all the way I just disliked walking dead.. haven't even watched a complete episode.

Battle of the bastards. Epic episode. Ramsay Bolton dead

Reyginus:
Lol. For where? But answer the Question and help Lanicky by voting on that thread.

Who lanicky don epp?

redgem:
Hahahahahahahahah you are funny....

It wasn't that funny! nice try....

Reyginus...noooo!!!

Dont wash panties.....resist it!!! dont vote!!!!!!

Reyginus:
Fool! Unknown or Unknowable?

lol....e pain am.

Reyginus:
Then knowledge that it cannot be known is what?

So knowing that the origins of the universe are unknown to humans makes the universe's origin to be known?


How are you not foolish?

Reyginus:
Is Knowledge that the Origin of the Universe is Unknowable not Knowledge of the Origin of the Universe? Let me rephrase. Is Knowledge that I can't know JackBizzle not also Knowledge that I know JackBizzle?

By the way, what happened to your Big Bang Theory.

https://www.quickmeme.com/img/93/937ebd26ae06cd3763223d70b10530ed11fbd4c3bcb65620d386566d0f799bfb.jpg


Knowing that something is unknowable is not a contradiction. It does not change the fact that the something is unknowable.

dblackninja:
Yeah. Rey doesn't understand. Am just trying to make it clearer by enabling him provide most of the answers to see if we can actually get to a point.

I did say that Rey is a dumbo

Reyginus:
Has it come to cancelling out? Okay. But you still missed the rhetoric. Your agnostic atheist doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I'm simply asking you to look at the contradictions you created.

You can show otherwise though. That's why you have to understand the rhetoric. Maybe you'd be good if I make it a question. Can I say there's no illiteracy in Schools but still say I can't know something schools?

Can dblackninja say he knows Reyginus a Mugu but still say He doesn't know anything about Reyginus? Can JackBizzle say he knows that he cannot find intelligence in Reyginus and still claim one cannot know something about Reyginus?

But we know nothing about God.

Where does he or she come from?
How old is he?
What are his full powers?
How does he think?
Where does he live?


Nothing nothing nothing. We are like ants in a hole in Brazil trying to think about humans in Nigeria. We would not be able to prove it exists even if it did. Unknowable.

But then, you can choose fairytales and delusions....like you always do.

Reyginus:
[s]Why should I love gay rights when the rights abominate humanism and humanity? Think bro. You atheists, in the mission to clean the faeces in Theism, often exchange your Grey Matter with Cotton Wool.

But that's as far as it can get for my disdain for homosexual behaviour. I don't hate gays. I see them in the same light I see people who have destroyed their lives with Alcohol and Smoking. I pity them.[/s]

Stop confusing yourself. There's a difference between Unknowable and Ignorance. We may not know the origin of the Universe but once we say it is Unknowable it implies we can't know it. They are different.

We can't know the origin of the universe. No records nothing. We dont even know how the dinosaurs truly went extinct.

Reyginus:
Can you proof that?

A humanist that hates gay rights and atheists?

Go and sleep.


And as for you and dblackninja's argument on the unknowable, it is easy to understand.

No one truly knows the origins of the universe. It is unknowable unless we have a time machine to go back and see it. At best, we can only speculate.

Your mind is also unknowable to me. I can't read it.

dblackninja:
Rey who told you that^!!?

I said it....Reyginus is a dummy

Reyginus's foolish beliefs

1) There are no intelligent atheists

2) He (Reyginus) is a humanist but not a secular humanist.



I would like to know what kind of humanist Reyginus is. The type that does not support gay rights? lmao.

wiegraf:
.....

I answered your question

once again, what is wrong with you? do you want me to bring out crayons to show why it so obviously depends? ie, even allowing for your baseless assumption that there are universal rules we must all follow, which is the folly the questions about god are supposed to highlight, it would still, and again - OBVIOUSLY, depend on various variables

OK then, just a little

your baseline is humanism? fine. so we put humanity first and the centre of the universe. then I could easily argue that if I saw Omar Mateen about to shoot himself before he strolled into the club it would be rather egregious of me to stop him, no?

and if you think assisted suicide is unacceptable under any condition then, asides from being heartless and/or incredibly selfish - on the level of say those who insist that abortion is wrong under any condition - you're also failing at being humanistic, which I would assume entails curbing human suffering, no?

do you really need me to go on? i thought you were the intelligent one here?

even assuming your rules hold, surely you understand there are morally grey areas, no?

or you dodging the questions deliberately?

nah, that would be beyond you

I await Reyginus's dull reply to this.

Reyginus:
You've succeeded in taking stupidity to a new height. A truth seeker and a belief? Smh. Now I pity you.

?

Who cares about your foolish truth seeker title
Are you Richard Rahl?



What is your stance on religion/God? Atheist, Christian or deist?

dblackninja:
Hahaha why are you calling the Lamb of God? You wan use the sacrifice do suya??
Okay, just re-watched the finale..i think I allowed the cliffhanger to cloud my judgment--it's still part of the episode anyway. Yeah it was ok. Adding 3.5...so 6.5/10

Only 6.5?

Anyway, do you watch the walking dead or game of thrones?

Reyginus:
You always have energy for the wrong things. For the mentally and psychologically stagnated, it's easier the use the mind less. Don't take this serious. I'm a truth seeker.

A truth seeker that can't honestly say what he believes in? Keep telling yourself lies

Reyginus:
I sincerely pity you. You don't grow intellectually. Every year same old you worn out by cyclic irrationality. How may I help you?

But...back in the day, I would have had the energy to take you seriously. Now, I'm more mature................


]So what are your beliefs? Say it na? lol......Lie mohammed Reyginus.



An anti atheist bigot like you, claiming to be smart? lmao

Reyginus:
Lolol. Wise one could you please answer my question? Please.

Make I drown for lagoon if I answer your question.


Did I not ask you a question first?

I asked you if you were still a christian, did you even reply? What are your beliefs, azzhole?


Abeg....park well.

Reyginus:
You forgot you are discussing with me. I kill red herrings with my bare hands. Young man, answer my question then we proceed.

Lie Mohammed!

Keep fooling yourself. Confused human being that doesnt know his beliefs.

dblackninja:
The concept of time remnant I agree is too vague. I think what they are trying to portray is thus:
When a speedster with time travelling abilities runs at high speed , he can go back few moment ago in time and can create a copy of himself which is called “Time Remnant ”. So due to rupture of timeline , time remnant is preserved by speed force in their timeline avoiding paradoxes . Remember also that when Barry went back in time to save his mother, he also saw the other Barry which can be called a time remnant.

Like Harrison wells from earth 2 said concerning Eobard Thawne's case: "It's possible Eobard was in the Speed Force, protecting him like a bomb shelter, keeping him alive and his timeline intact. It's what's known as a "timeline remnant"."

Too vague. Also, time travel always causes paradoxes. A time remnant is a paradox ititself.