@Idehn and thehomer
Birds of the same feather

You are being disingenuous with your translation. You do not like the negative(and well deserved) connotations of slavery, and so you are opting to use a servant instead. That is also why you are trying so hard to equivocate voluntary labor with forced labor. As if the distinguishing factor between a servant and slave are shackles and a pen. That is like equivocating violation with love making because the victim was not bound up. The distinguishing factor between a servant and slave(in English) is volition.  Did you not read the first sentence on the wiki page that defines slavery?

It's not my translation, it's the A.V/KJV. I didn't translate it. 900 to 5 is not a small difference. i've not tried to equivocate 'voluntary labour' to forced labour. It's thehomer that comes like "God is so mean he permits sale of human beings". Then i show him that we still sell humans for entertainment. Then he comes with "God is so immoral He allows humans to be inherited", and i say "oh we do this everytime in business or there'd be mass unemployment and job insecurity". Now he's on with forced labour and i'm showing you both that it's done in the military, secondary schools etc. i've been saying the concept is not the major issue but the relationship. There are husband and wife that live worse than some master and slave. Life is not a linear equation, it's a little more than that. A slave has a combination of a lot of burden on him. All these combo do not apply to what is described in the Bible. You think the distinguishing factor between servant and slave is volition? That's a shocker, really. Who wants to be a servant, how does volition apply here? Unfortunately, all you seemed to read and hole was the first sentence on the wiki page. It's actually a combination, not just the first line. that's why they didn't stop at the first line. HERE is the page again. Permit me to paste some sentences there below.

Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation.
The number of slaves today remains as high as 12 million to 27 million
The earliest records of slavery can be traced to the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760 BC), for example Hammurabi's Code of Laws stated that death was prescribed for anyone who helped a slave to escape. as well as for anyone who sheltered a fugitive.
slaves used not only for labour, but also for amusement (e.g. gladiators and sex slaves).
By the late Republican era, slavery had become a vital economic pillar in the wealth of Rome, as well as a very significant part of Roman society
Author Charles Rappleye argued that "In the West Indies in particular, but also in North and South America, slavery was the engine that drove the mercantile empires of Europe, It appeared, in the eighteenth century, as universal and immutable as human nature".
Current situation
Slavery still exists, although in theory it has now been outlawed in all countries.

And if you read through you'd see the pitiable condition of slaves and how it was big business all over the world. For instance, talking of some part of Africa it says 'that for every slave who arrived at a market three or four died on the way'. It was worse in some other parts. The Bible relationship described isn't this deplorable. In most cases, it was the opposite. The servants in the Bible were well catered for by their owners. They were even so close that they could marry (c Exodus 21v7-9). They were trained and cared for like in the case of Abraham and his servants. While it was normal for Hammurabi's Code of Laws to prescribe death for anyone who helped a slave to escape. as well as for anyone who sheltered a fugitive, it was the opposite in the Bible.
Deuteronomy 23:15  Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
Deu 23:16  He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.
This is almost too good to be true but you've overlooked it. A master couldn't afford to maltreat his servant. If he beat him to the point of injury, the servant was free to go (take note that anybody could be beaten at that time, not only servants).
Exo 21:26  And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
Exo 21:27  And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
These doesn't obtain in what we all know to be slavery. Servants, strangers, widows and the poor had to be taken care of as a matter of law. In other places, slaves were used for business and as economic pillar, in Israel they had a fixed price, and that fixed price was 30pieces of silver. It's so low you can't use it to make gains. You dn't buy 28 and sell 33. It was to discourage sale. And you don't buy anyhow you like because you'd be responsible for the welfare i.e feeding, clothing, health, children, management, housing etc.

The page then goes on to list what attributes slaves can have not attributes they must have. The vile abomination that is slavery in the Bible is painfully clear. What makes what occurs in the Bible slavery is that they are forced to tolerate/accept these things(among others):

There you go again, what's with atheists and sentiments? Who made you a judge of 'can haves' and 'must haves'. If the servants in the Bible were a vile abomination, why do we see Abraham's servant as head of all that he had? Why is this servant choosing a wife for Abraham's son? Why is Abraham asking that his servants be 'paid' by the king of Sodom? Why is Joshua-Moses' servant made the leader of a nation, why is Elisha-Elijah's servant given double of what his master had? Why is Boaz's servant head of a group of workers, among which Boaz married? Why does Solomon make Jeroboam his servant to be a ruler, who became so powerful he later became king? And so on and on. these are the practically examples we see in the Bible, not taking a verse and building castles around it. the Bible is the whole of 66books taken together for good understanding, not picking and choosing as is your wont and that of false preachers.

Slaves can be beaten to death without consequence if they die after a day has passed.

Can you sincerely answer as to what happened if the servant beaten died the same day? What was set in the law are boundaries and limits as to treatment of servants. Servants existed and would continue to exist. It's in the human nature. God didn't make us that way though, we did. Man fell from the position god placed him and tends towards such wickedness and oppression. It's these that Jesus came to save us from. What the old testament did was to put limits in place that man could achieve. When Jesus came, He gave power  and lifted us up to the ability to do things better. We're still on earth and still see imperfections in different aspects. We are not in heaven or in a state of utopia. God's word is the remedy to our deplorable state. It is the manual for our life to function the right/best way. It tells us the truth about things and about us, it's not a politically correct liar, dancing/playing to the gallery. There are worse conditions than what you servanthood today. Some people are slaves to sin, some are slaves to alcohol, some are limited by sickness. All these things are what Jesus has come to make us free from. Some people are making money but don't have peace of mind and cannot afford to quit their job(s). Some wake so early in the morning and return home exhausted so late at night, they call themselves cute names still. They don't have the freedom to go to work by 10am or leave by 2pm, and they dare not resign for fear of whatever. Some people have been tied to an hospital bed for the past 3months by sickness and their condition is not getting better. Some people have to roam the streets and run up and down the highway selling something to make ends meet for themselves and their own. All these and more are the reality of the world we live in. the world is out of course, it's not what was the initial plan. but God has redemption in mind. When Jesus comes, everything would be perfect again, and then we will live with Him forever. then there'll be no more sorrow, crying or death, no more sickness. But only those that receive Jesus can experience these beauty for eternity. Except a man be born again, He cannot see God's kingdom. But we can all choose to see God's kingdom and even bring God's kingdom to our world and relationships. It's takes a step of faith. One step at a time, and we'll reach it.

Image123:

@Idehn and thehomer
Birds of the same feather
It's not my translation, it's the A.V/KJV. I didn't translate it. 900 to 5 is not a small difference.

I have presented the English definition of slave and servant. If the individuals in the bible are forced to obey under threat of violence to their person then they are in fact slaves. They are more than simply performing duties for another which is what is implied by being a servant. Also a group of people doing something wrong does not make it correct. Especially if you cannot defend the translation of the 900 bible translations.

Image123:

@Idehn and thehomer
Birds of the same feather
i've not tried to equivocate 'voluntary labour' to forced labour. It's thehomer that comes like "God is so mean he permits sale of human beings". Then i show him that we still sell humans for entertainment. Then he comes with "God is so immoral He allows humans to be inherited", and i say "oh we do this everytime in business or there'd be mass unemployment and job insecurity". Now he's on with forced labour and i'm showing you both that it's done in the military, secondary schools etc. i've been saying the concept is not the major issue but the relationship. There are husband and wife that live worse than some master and slave. Life is not a linear equation, it's a little more than that. A slave has a combination of a lot of burden on him. All these combo do not apply to what is described in the Bible. You think the distinguishing factor between servant and slave is volition?

You are trying to equivocate voluntary labor to forced labor. Football players are not sold. They enter into contractual agreements to[i] exchange[/i] their labor for wages. If the same contract stipulates that the team can sell/transfer the agreement to another party then it is still voluntary. If you refuse to uphold your agreement then you are liable for the wages you have been given which is essentially stolen. No one is going to threaten football players with bodily harm if they refuse to give up their labor(slavery). However, they will attempt to compel the player to return the wages or suffer bad credit/reputation/garnishment of wages etc. . . . I agree that many components of the compulsory(violently) elements of the State are wrong and harmful. For example I think compulsory education no matter how well intentioned is wrong. Most people should and will if the opportunity arises, seek out self improvement in the form of education. Forcing people who do not or would not is wrong and can be destructive.

Image123:

There are husband and wife that live worse than some master and slave. Life is not a linear equation, it's a little more than that. A slave has a combination of a lot of burden on him. All these combo do not apply to what is described in the Bible. You think the distinguishing factor between servant and slave is volition? That's a shocker, really. Who wants to be a servant, how does volition apply here?

And who wants to work at a coal mine? Who wants to flip burgers at Mc Donalds? Who wants to work in a hot smelly factory all day? Who wants to work at all? Are you seriously surprised people willingly do jobs they do not like in exchange for wages? Does that actually shock you? Or are trying to tell me that the the thing keeping people doing these jobs is the fact that someone will beat them if they quit? I may hate paying my bills, but I willingly do it because I like water and electricity more. So yes volition is the key here. Is a individual threatening me with violence to do something or am I choosing based on my needs/desires to do it.

Image123:

Unfortunately, all you seemed to read and hole was the first sentence on the wiki page. It's actually a combination, not just the first line. that's why they didn't stop at the first line. HERE is the page again.

No, it is not a combination of those thing. Here let me quote the line you were talking about.

Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation.

Here is definition of can from wikipedia as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verb#Can_and_could

Can is used to express ability. "I can speak English" means "I am able to speak English", or "I know how to speak English".

It is also used to express that some state of affairs is possible, without referring to the ability of a person to do something: "There can be a very strong rivalry between siblings" can have the same meaning as "There is sometimes a very strong rivalry between siblings".

Wikipedia is not asserting that all those things are necessary condition to be a slave. You are the one asserting this. They are saying those things are possible conditions. That is why I refer you to the first sentence i.e the definition of slave to know what a slave IS.

Image123:

Permit me to paste some sentences there below.
And if you read through you'd see the pitiable condition of slaves and how it was big business all over the world. For instance, talking of some part of Africa it says 'that for every slave who arrived at a market three or four died on the way'. It was worse in some other parts. The Bible relationship described isn't this deplorable. In most cases, it was the opposite. The servants in the Bible were well catered for by their owners. They were even so close that they could marry (c Exodus 21v7-9). They were trained and cared for like in the case of Abraham and his servants.

So your primary defense of slavery in the bible is that it could have been worse? Well catered for by their owners too? When is the denial of freedom and being threatened with bodily harm considered catering? And not as bad? You fail to note some of the ways slaves were acquired in the bible.

If your city chooses to surrender rather than be massacred you all get to be slaves.

Dt.20:10-11
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

However, if your city chose to resist then all the men will be slaughtered, and only the women and children get the opportunity to become slaves.

Dt.20
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

More slaughter of men and enslavement of their their sons(young),daughters,mothers,wives, and sisters.

Numbers 31
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

Oh wait axe that. Of the group that was saved, murder all the boys and non virgins too.

Numbers 31
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Not as bad? Hardly.

Image123:

While it was normal for Hammurabi's Code of Laws to prescribe death for anyone who helped a slave to escape. as well as for anyone who sheltered a fugitive, it was the opposite in the Bible.
Deuteronomy 23:15  Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
Deu 23:16  He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

This is actually one of the commendable aspects of slavery in the bible. Even though it is perfectly fine to beat your slaves even to the point of death, obtain slaves through genocidal wars/purchases, and own your slaves and their progeny in perpetuity, at least if the fugitive slaves managed to escape they have a chance to be free. Of course this does not bar the master from just capturing the slave again and beating them for running away if they leave the safety the individuals domicile.

Image123:

This is almost too good to be true but you've overlooked it. A master couldn't afford to maltreat his servant. If he beat him to the point of injury, the servant was free to go (take note that anybody could be beaten at that time, not only servants).
Exo 21:26  And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
Exo 21:27  And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

I knew you would use this. Great, as long as you do not maim your slaves and cause them to die the same day, you can beat them however and as often as you like. Yes I am aware that you can beat a lot of other people but that is a whole other can of worms. Needless to say, this is not a defense at all and is just confirming that the individuals really were slaves not just servants. This is precisely what is implied by the definition and descriptions on the Wikipedia page.

These doesn't obtain in what we all know to be slavery. Servants, strangers, widows and the poor had to be taken care of as a matter of law. In other places, slaves were used for business and as economic pillar, in Israel they had a fixed price, and that fixed price was 30pieces of silver. It's so low you can't use it to make gains. You dn't buy 28 and sell 33. It was to discourage sale. And you don't buy anyhow you like because you'd be responsible for the welfare i.e feeding, clothing, health, children, management, housing etc.

Great, there were price controls on slaves making them cheap. They were still slaves. Also I do not know about you but forcing people to be domestic attendants and farm hands(not to mention sexual outlets) is exactly what I think of when the issue of slavery arises. Throughout history agriculture and domestic labor have been the primary uses of slaves. Just have a look through the wiki if you do not believe me.

Of course you have to take care of your slaves. If you did not they would die and then where would you be. Without a slave and without 30 pieces of silver. The profit of slavery also comes in the form of cheap labor. Or are you suggesting the American south/Haiti/Brazil/Dominican Republic etc. . . . slave plantations were operating at severe losses.

Image123:

There you go again, what's with atheists and sentiments? Who made you a judge of 'can haves' and 'must haves'. If the servants in the Bible were a vile abomination, why do we see Abraham's servant as head of all that he had? Why is this servant choosing a wife for Abraham's son? Why is Abraham asking that his servants be 'paid' by the king of Sodom? Why is Joshua-Moses' servant made the leader of a nation, why is Elisha-Elijah's servant given double of what his master had? Why is Boaz's servant head of a group of workers, among which Boaz married? Why does Solomon make Jeroboam his servant to be a ruler, who became so powerful he later became king? And so on and on. these are the practically examples we see in the Bible, not taking a verse and building castles around it. the Bible is the whole of 66books taken together for good understanding, not picking and choosing as is your wont and that of false preachers.

Atheist sentiments? More like someone who is opposed to the violently enforced servitude of others. If that is what it means to be an atheist then I can only hope you are one too. Moreover, this could easily be the sentiment of anyone who does not agree with the bible on this topic not just atheist.

Joshua actually was Moses' servant(following the definition I gave). It is documented that he voluntarily served Moses and was never forced to under threat of violence to serve him. This is why I emphasized context in my first post. The word eved is translated the same way even though it is used describe two different concepts.

So the fact that Abraham/Solomon treated there slaves well changes the fact that they were compelled under threat of violence to serve them. Could Eliezer just refuse to obey Abraham and leave? Was Abraham not free to beat him? If he died a day later would anything happen to Abraham? Was Abraham not free to sell him to another?
Is this not also the case for Solomon and Boaz. A slave is a slave, no matter how much the issue is sugar coated and the linchpin of the institution in the bible is still violence. A kidnapper can treat their victim as nicely as Abraham treat his slaves but it does not change the vileness of the situation. A despoiler can offer their victim 1 million pounds and all his possessions after the fact but by and by it does not change the vileness of the act. How does saying that other kidnappers/despoiler would treat their victims worse make these acts less vile? It does not. In the same way slavery does not just because some slaves were treated well. As I said before, it is volition that matters.

Image123:

Can you sincerely answer as to what happened if the servant beaten died the same day?

No I sincerely cannot. The bible just says that some non descriptive punishment should befall the master.

Ex.21:20-21
    If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished;

It could literally be anything as inconsequential as a slap on the wrist or some fine. I have no idea what.

But I know what doesn't happen if the slave dies a day or so later.

Ex.21:20-21
;notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.

So yeah if you beat your slave to death and they die the same day something bad should happen to you. However, if you beat them to death and the slave manages to live for a day longer than nothing will happen.

Image123:

What was set in the law are boundaries and limits as to treatment of servants slaves. Servants Slaves existed and would continue to exist.

Your definition of servant has pretty much degenerated or at the very least is indistinguishable from the definition of slave so let us not continue to play this word game any longer.

Image123:

@thehomer

You were the one making an issue of humans been bought and sold and of others inheriting humans, until i showed you that these concepts are still in common practice. Slavery is not all about getting paid or not. There you go again with another concept, slavery is not a linear equation and life is not either. there are different factors involved, that's why i told you of what slavery implies/denotes and i even referred you to your fav wiki.

What does slavery in the Bible imply? How are biblical slaves supposed to be treated? Do you think treating people in that way is humane?

Image123:

This is a poor and biased perspective. When you command, you're held responsible for your actions. It is as if you carried them. Like when we talk of Hitler killing Jews, or Gaddaffi or Abacha. Or when we talk of what the Federal Government has done/built, we say Goodluck Jonathan or Obasanjo or Fashola or IBB did this and that. But now it's God's turn and He's accomplice.

Oh I'm sorry. Then in that case, God is not an accomplice, he is therefore responsible for the actions of the Israelites in those situations.

Image123:

i never said or thought UBA workers or other company workers are slaves in the sense you mean, what i've shown you is that they(the workers) can be inherited by other masters, and that one can actually be slaving and carry the title of a manager(but you asked that i use your definition). Here is what was said about how one is guilty of killing a servant in the Bible.

Exo 21:12  He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
Exo 21:20  And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Lev 24:17  And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

God's standards always disgraces man's standards anyday, it would do you good to notice/find out what obtained in other nations outside Israel.

If you say that you agree that UBA workers are not slaves, then why do you keep bringing that up? I've told you what is meant by slave so what do you think it means? Why don't you present actual examples of slavery that fits with what is described in the Bible rather than making stuff up with outrageous claims.

Image123:

And i am talking about the Creator of all humans, Who is greater than all humans. Anybody can point out anything, a kid was pointing to me the other day and saying 'daddy daddy', and i'm not his daddy. i've also pointed out to you that the Bible is good enough so you pointing is invalid. And who killed his child for changing his religion to say hinduism in the Bible?

I never said someone did. I'm asking you if you think it is right to kill your child if he worships another God.

Image123:

Not in the covenant in which we live, there is time for everything. His command for today is that you should repent and stop waiting for a sign like the Pharisees.
Acts 17:30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

The usual evasion. Please answer this with a yes or no. Can God command you to kill someone?

Image123:

What do i mean by life ke? What do you know as life? i'm talking about the life that all living things are said to possess that makes them living things. So what is the source of life? Now see this, John 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Do notice that i didn't put Him there, He was there already.

You are again shifting the goal posts. I responded to your initial question on life you then shifted it. This is why I would like to know what you mean by life if I'm to properly answer your question.
Actually, you did since you do not seem to take the entire Bible literally. This of course means you pick and choose.

Image123:

i now know better when discussing such with thehomer. Simply trace back our discussion on the issue.

Good.

Image123:

Aaargh, you're not a kid na. Don't you remember when you mentioned that Genesis says the earth was formed 6000years ago or something on that line? Aaah you just noticed the numbers, i'm glad to educate you in the earth sciences, it's been a displeasure. And remember like i said, those numbers differ from imagination to imagination, textbook to textbook, and person to person.

Well yes. The implication from reading Genesis is that the earth is about 6000 years old. Do you agree with that?
Sorry but you did not educate me on anything because you do not appear to understand what you posted. Your reference to the numbers differing, shows me that you still do not understand how science works.

Image123:

, when i said this was irrelevant, some might have thought i was shying away or something. You were literarily 'pointing a gun at my head for names'. Now you're giving excuses. When i put the quotes on "modern humans evolved", you thought we were in biology class or i mentioned something about your biology teacher? keep noting ehn, it's good for your learning. Do you even understand the concept of evolving or evolution. na wa for you o, thehomer.

With this post, you have again shown how relevant it is because you have failed to actually present named scientists who agree with you. You simply misinterpreted what they said. Also, I do understand the concept of evolution to know that when biologist use it in the context of referring to humans and other organisms, they are using it in the biological sense. So please present your scientists saying humans evolved in the holocene.

Image123:

Did i mention that scientific theories and laws are the same? i thought i was saying that they are not the same, there you go thinking for me again ba? i think the history was that it was 'newton's law of gravitation' until as usual with science, flaws were discovered, then with Einstein's help it became 'theory of gravitation. Well maybe i'd look that up sometime, science books and their inconsistencies sha.

I never said they were the same neither did I say you said that. What I pointed out to you is that laws do not become theories neither do theories become laws in science so what you said above is simply wrong.

Image123:

Are you really saying that electrons and gravity are the things that make people to make wild hypotheses about how star A formed B billions years ago at a distance C from the earth and a diameter D which reduced or increased(depending on the sweetness of the mouth of the Prof speaking) Emillion years later and how this star A would die in Fmillion years time. The bolded part of your post above is what i've been saying about faith, are you thinking through me yet again? You're the one who lays emphasis on seeing before believing?

Yes electrons and gravity are some of the basis on which star formation is known. You should also realize that they are not wild hypotheses, but theories and hypotheses based on observation and experimentation. It is based on those theories that we know the requirements for the formation of black holes, explanation of observed supernova before the advent of telescopes etc.
I'm able to tell what you think based on what you say or are they dissociated in you?
Sorry but you are now putting words in my mouth. Where did I say or imply seeing is believing? All I asked for was evidence.

Image123:

You know my stand on this thehomer, why are you such a slave to insincerity?

How was I insincere? Think carefully of your belief. You believe that a rapture will occur soon but you also think that the guy who places a date is somehow wacky while you hold the same belief only without attaching a date.

thehomer:

How was I insincere? Think carefully of your belief. You believe that a rapture will occur soon but you also think that the guy who places a date is somehow wacky while you hold the same belief only without attaching a date.

This is the thing I do not understand about the rapture belief. It is a matter of degrees not substance. That is why Nigeria is filled with "Prophets", "Prophetesses", and "miracle workers".

Image123:

@thehomer

By the grace of God, on the issue of the world ending on May 21st which coincidentally is today, i'll say i know more on this issue than them. it's in the Bible that no one knows the day, but they make a calculation from Genesis 6 i think and say today is 7days from Genesis 6, that's an error. I do not condemn them, they are still christians if they have truly believed on Jesus and are saved from sin. What they lacked was proper understanding of God's Word which is clear enough on this issue. How do you decide on who is right, the Word of God is right, not man.
Psalm 18:30  As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple
God is the one that we trust, and turn our eyes on, not man. Man can fail, he's limited one way or the other. In school, you may have a student in class who fails a subject, it doesn't make him no more a student and the blame is not on the textbook.

In other words, you think the event will occur but anyone who puts a date on it while you're alive is automatically not as knowledgeable as you.

Image123:

So english language usage is common mresoteric, but you want the common usage when we are discussing 'faith' na, so a scientific theory is  type of theory, yes or no?

When we're discussing faith, I would like a dictionary definition. When we are discussing 'scientific theory', I would also like a dictionary definition. Simply look it up and compare the meaning with 'theory'.

Image123:

God made humans intelligent in the first instance i.e intelligent when compared with other living things like animals and plants ofcourse. How did you miss the part that says God created us to have dominion and glorify Him? You picked on pleasing and serving God. Pleasing and serving doesn't translate to slavery. On the bolded, simulations are not always the same as real life, and man was not just like the other creations, he was created with a will of his own.

You don't think it is slavery? God says "Serve and glorify me or I will kill you and torture you." Do you see anything wrong with such a sentiment?

Image123:

The earth's orbit is an ellipse, is this ellipse round or flat shaped? It depends on where you are standing, if you are standing on the big 'circle' you may think or rightly say flat. But if you were far away like as far as the earth is to the moon or the sun, you'd describe the shape as round or circle if you were addressing more than six billion people. The pillars of the earth i've told you, are pictorial language/metaphor to describe that there is something holding the earth or keeping it in place, from roaming off to another orbit or galaxy or system. there's something made by God that keeps it tilted at a certain angle/range and moving a particular direction and speed. Science have found other names for that now, but it's the same thing nonetheless.

The earths orbit in 2D traces out an ellipse. But, the earth is simply not flat. It is spherical. One would think God could have communicated this to his people considering that they had knowledge of balls.

Image123:

This is a precious waste of nl space. Who says those scriptures are wrong, the federal board of atheist party?

We know these facts based on scientific evidence, logic and proper review of the Bible.

Image123:

Remember this? What you saw was that 'Science doesn't do proofs because it relies on evidence. You get proofs in mathematics and logic. Science is much broader than that.' But all glory be to God, it seems you now see that maths is an integral science, and actually used to solve so many scientific problems. Anyway, whatever you say next on this you're right okay, YOU ARE RIGHT. Let's cut the irrelevancies.

I know I'm right. Even from the quote of mine you pasted, you can see that I said science was broader than mathematics and logic which implies that those concepts are used in science.

Image123:

The deluded thinks it's true, but it doesn't rule out the fact that there is a true group that has found the word of God to be divine and true.

How do you tell the difference?

Image123:

that's why i never presented you with a single criterion, i gave you criteria why i see the Word of God as divine. You may scroll back to the beginnings of our discussions on this thread.

Then please present them in order.

Image123:

Have some faith, atleast you do when it comes to star formation.

Sorry but based on my desire to hold justifiably true beliefs, faith simply does not factor in this process. The star formation actually has sound logical reasoning and scientific evidence behind it whether you like it or not.

Image123:

That's a very poor paraphrase then. Anyone who is born again has the ability to interpret scripture and decide whether a person's actions were right or wrong. This of course is based on the scriptures.

Here you're saying something else. What you're saying here is that anyone who is born again can interpret scripture to tell if a person's action is right or wrong. What happens when they both have different interpretations?

Image123:

If you mean to ask if there were scriptures before the council of nicea and co, yes there was scriptures. If those books have not passed away, they'd be in my Bible. You can't sieve out Genesis or vote out Leviticus, not you not pdp not the UN not the internet, no one or council.

If they passed away, why are they still available? Actually, the Bible you have was voted on to determine what should be passed on to people like you.

Image123:

If you know anything about slavery, you'd know that the Biblical relationship of a servant and master is actually love when compared with what obtained in heathen nations around, the world over. When God sent Jesus to die and make heathen and Jews one and gave no more room for what obtained in Lev 25, it took the world more than 1500 years after to abolish slavery and they are still at it till date. You're late, God never made an error. Man always has to blame God for his inadequacies. God made man to have dominion over animals and co, Adam fell from this glorious position. From the beginning it was not so, it's man's wicked imaginations that brought slavery, God actually limited slavery until He sent His Son Jesus who brought the grace and the power to man to live a 'civilised' life.

You need to stop conflating slaves with servants. Sure God didn't make a mistake, he simply encouraged his chosen ones to enslave others. Actually, slavery has been abolished. That is why people who still enslave others are considered criminals thus God can be considered a criminal since his word hasn't changed.

Image123:

You're only believing what you want to believe. You should have known from that simple analogy that 'the tree of life' and 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' refer to something different from the common usage of the words 'life' and 'knowledge of good and evil'. So he had to be alive to eat/before eating the tree of life but couldn't have knowledge to eat/before eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil ba? double standards, insincerity.

So what are they referring to?
Not double standards just different concepts.

Image123:

i've shown you and will re-show you what i believe.
Daniel 2:38  And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
You have glibly insisted that it is wheresoever the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven dwell. i told you that the world known to Nebuchadnezzar was ruled by him. But you said he didn't know so and so places. you're the one to show proof that he didn't know or rule such a place. And then the prophecy fell right in place remember?

I'm not the one insisting this, read your quote, it is right there. Read it. You are now reinterpreting the Bible to mean only where he knew. I've already shown you the extent of his empire which by extension means the extent of his rule. If you think he ruled the places I mentioned, you [/b]need to show evidence for this.

Image123:

And what is being discussed doesn't qualify as slavery. Stop wondering about pastors, you're still having issues thinking my thoughts for me, don't add more to our burden. Stop being so heavy laden, Jesus wants to give you rest. When the word slave(s) appears less than 5 times, and the word servant(s) appears over 900 times in a book, [b]it's not unimportant especially when you insist on replacing the word 'servant' with 'slave' every single time. Get sincere and serious please.

Now you accuse me of doing what you've been doing even when I do not? Get real.

Image123:

A performance of a miracle? No. i didn't need a miracle to be saved, i simply believed and was saved.

Acts 16:30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

God has nothing to lose, you have all to lose. Look at it again here below'

Luke 13:2  And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
Luke 13:3  I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:4  Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
Luke 13:5  I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
The ball is in your court as it were, you too can be saved today.

But you had some miracles did you not? If you did, then I want my own miracles. It really is that simple.

Image123:

@Idehn and thehomer
Birds of the same feather
It's not my translation, it's the A.V/KJV. I didn't translate it. 900 to 5 is not a small difference. i've not tried to equivocate 'voluntary labour' to forced labour. It's thehomer that comes like "God is so mean he permits sale of human beings". Then i show him that we still sell humans for entertainment. Then he comes with "God is so immoral He allows humans to be inherited", and i say "oh we do this everytime in business or there'd be mass unemployment and job insecurity". Now he's on with forced labour and i'm showing you both that it's done in the military, secondary schools etc. i've been saying the concept is not the major issue but the relationship. There are husband and wife that live worse than some master and slave. Life is not a linear equation, it's a little more than that. A slave has a combination of a lot of burden on him. All these combo do not apply to what is described in the Bible. You think the distinguishing factor between servant and slave is volition? That's a shocker, really. Who wants to be a servant, how does volition apply here? Unfortunately, all you seemed to read and hole was the first sentence on the wiki page. It's actually a combination, not just the first line. that's why they didn't stop at the first line. HERE is the page again. Permit me to paste some sentences there below.
And if you read through you'd see the pitiable condition of slaves and how it was big business all over the world. For instance, talking of some part of Africa it says 'that for every slave who arrived at a market three or four died on the way'. It was worse in some other parts. The Bible relationship described isn't this deplorable. In most cases, it was the opposite. The servants in the Bible were well catered for by their owners. They were even so close that they could marry (c Exodus 21v7-9). They were trained and cared for like in the case of Abraham and his servants. While it was normal for Hammurabi's Code of Laws to prescribe death for anyone who helped a slave to escape. as well as for anyone who sheltered a fugitive, it was the opposite in the Bible.
Deuteronomy 23:15  Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
Deu 23:16  He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.
This is almost too good to be true but you've overlooked it. A master couldn't afford to maltreat his servant. If he beat him to the point of injury, the servant was free to go (take note that anybody could be beaten at that time, not only servants).
Exo 21:26  And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
Exo 21:27  And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
These doesn't obtain in what we all know to be slavery. Servants, strangers, widows and the poor had to be taken care of as a matter of law. In other places, slaves were used for business and as economic pillar, in Israel they had a fixed price, and that fixed price was 30pieces of silver. It's so low you can't use it to make gains. You dn't buy 28 and sell 33. It was to discourage sale. And you don't buy anyhow you like because you'd be responsible for the welfare i.e feeding, clothing, health, children, management, housing etc.

There you go again, what's with atheists and sentiments? Who made you a judge of 'can haves' and 'must haves'. If the servants in the Bible were a vile abomination, why do we see Abraham's servant as head of all that he had? Why is this servant choosing a wife for Abraham's son? Why is Abraham asking that his servants be 'paid' by the king of Sodom? Why is Joshua-Moses' servant made the leader of a nation, why is Elisha-Elijah's servant given double of what his master had? Why is Boaz's servant head of a group of workers, among which Boaz married? Why does Solomon make Jeroboam his servant to be a ruler, who became so powerful he later became king? And so on and on. these are the practically examples we see in the Bible, not taking a verse and building castles around it. the Bible is the whole of 66books taken together for good understanding, not picking and choosing as is your wont and that of false preachers.

Can you sincerely answer as to what happened if the servant beaten died the same day? What was set in the law are boundaries and limits as to treatment of servants. Servants existed and would continue to exist. It's in the human nature. God didn't make us that way though, we did. Man fell from the position god placed him and tends towards such wickedness and oppression. It's these that Jesus came to save us from. What the old testament did was to put limits in place that man could achieve. When Jesus came, He gave power  and lifted us up to the ability to do things better. We're still on earth and still see imperfections in different aspects. We are not in heaven or in a state of utopia. God's word is the remedy to our deplorable state. It is the manual for our life to function the right/best way. It tells us the truth about things and about us, it's not a politically correct liar, dancing/playing to the gallery. There are worse conditions than what you servanthood today. Some people are slaves to sin, some are slaves to alcohol, some are limited by sickness. All these things are what Jesus has come to make us free from. Some people are making money but don't have peace of mind and cannot afford to quit their job(s). Some wake so early in the morning and return home exhausted so late at night, they call themselves cute names still. They don't have the freedom to go to work by 10am or leave by 2pm, and they dare not resign for fear of whatever. Some people have been tied to an hospital bed for the past 3months by sickness and their condition is not getting better. Some people have to roam the streets and run up and down the highway selling something to make ends meet for themselves and their own. All these and more are the reality of the world we live in. the world is out of course, it's not what was the initial plan. but God has redemption in mind. When Jesus comes, everything would be perfect again, and then we will live with Him forever. then there'll be no more sorrow, crying or death, no more sickness. But only those that receive Jesus can experience these beauty for eternity. Except a man be born again, He cannot see God's kingdom. But we can all choose to see God's kingdom and even bring God's kingdom to our world and relationships. It's takes a step of faith. One step at a time, and we'll reach it.

I think Idehn has this one.

Idehn:

This is the thing I do not understand about the rapture belief. It is a matter of degrees not substance. That is why Nigeria is filled with "Prophets", "Prophetesses", and "miracle workers".

Yes. And we find the so called nuanced Christians somehow do not see this.

But you had some miracles did you not? If you did, then I want my own miracles. It really is that simple.

This is what i'm replying to, i don't have the time for unserious set of people. There was no miracle before i gave my life to Christ, do i really have to say this in your mother-tongue?

Image123:

This is what i'm replying to, i don't have the time for unserious set of people. There was no miracle before i gave my life to Christ, do i really have to say this in your mother-tongue?

Then you lied here. Please read your second response reproduced below (emphasis mine).

Image123:
i believe that i've been as detailed as possible, answering you almost per sentence, it's dishonest for you to accuse me of shying/dancing away from your questions. It's not God's fault that you do not believe. All men do not believe by default, i was once an unbeliever too. It did take a miracle, and God's intervention for me and for all believers. It's not a matter of been born as in a christian family or locale. Every man has to believe by him/herself. Jesus was sent by God to intervene. He died to pay for our sins, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him, in His payment/work, would not perish. the ball is in YOUR court as it were.

And who are the unserious people? You now wish to run away when the implications of slavery have been made clear to you.

^
i answered in context. i didn't receive a miracle, like say lightning or thunder, or a strange voice, or some lame or blind person getting healed, or the sea parting before i believed. That's what i mean.
The context where you quoted me is that salvation itself is a miracle. It is a miracle for any one to be saved, it's not brain power or natural. Your salvation itself is the miracle, not some sign you seem to be expecting before you believe. Anyone who's not saved is blind/dead but having ability to believe. It's that belief that leads to your salvation which is the miracle.
On being unserious, you've been v.insincere and Idehn just made it worse. So much 'goal post shifting', i don't have time for such arguement in circles and 'na me post last'. If i see the need to reply you later, i may. But presently, no, sorry.

Image123:

On being unserious, you've been v.insincere and Idehn just made it worse. So much 'goal post shifting', i don't have time for such arguement in circles and 'na me post last'. If i see the need to reply you later, i may. But presently, no, sorry.

I really hope you know what 'goal post shifting' means.

You at first tried to play games of semantics. It was clear from your previous post that you were not even aware of how the word eved was being translation. You were all to happy to use the word servant and hide behind past translation in order to avoid the negative connotation of slave. When I brought up this issue,  you then tried to use Wikipedia to cobble together a definition of slavery I suspect to specifically exclude what occurred in the bible. Even your own reference does not support your definition. 

I have remained consistent with the definition I have provided from the beginning. Even your own reference agrees with me. I have argued since the beginning that context must be used and that in many parts of the old testament the word eved should be translated as slave not servant. I am not asserting that it should be slave everywhere. Hell, by your own  definition even the Hebrews in Egypt could not be considered slaves.

You then tried to equivocate voluntary labor with slavery by implying that ball players were sold like slaves which is wrong. I have shown that no one is forced/forcing them to obey under threat of violence.

You then tried to imply that nobody voluntarily becomes a servant which is patently false. It goes without saying that if the wages are good enough people will voluntarily accept/continue the position without use of forced to obey under threat of violence.

You then tried to argue that if masters treat people they forced to obey them under threat of violence well then they are just servants not slaves which is obviously wrong.

You then tried to say that since other members of society are not obliged to return people forced to obey under threat of violence to their masters, then it is not slavery which of course is false.

You then tried, with some truly warped logic, to say that having limitations on beating someone forced to obey under threat of violence, means that they are not slaves. The fact that a master is legally able and willing to use violence to force obedience is proof positive that the victims are slaves not just servants. How can you not see this?

In each of your attempts you completely missed the point. In each one you just continued ignoring the definition of slave even when it was on the first sentence of a reference you cited. In none of your responses have you ever addressed the fact that these people were forced to obey under threat of violence. NOT ONE SINGLE TIME.
That should at least give you a moment of introspection.

So I ask are their instances in the bible where the word slave

slave |slāv|
noun chiefly historical
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

is more appropriate. I believe I have shown that the answer is yes.

Image123:

^
i answered in context. i didn't receive a miracle, like say lightning or thunder, or a strange voice, or some lame or blind person getting healed, or the sea parting before i believed. That's what i mean.
The context where you quoted me is that salvation itself is a miracle. It is a miracle for any one to be saved, it's not brain power or natural. Your salvation itself is the miracle, not some sign you seem to be expecting before you believe. Anyone who's not saved is blind/dead but having ability to believe. It's that belief that leads to your salvation which is the miracle.

What you're saying here is absurd. You're saying a person doesn't need a miracle to be saved but the person needs salvation to be saved. What does it even mean?

Image123:

On being unserious, you've been v.insincere and Idehn just made it worse. So much 'goal post shifting', i don't have time for such arguement in circles and 'na me post last'. If i see the need to reply you later, i may. But presently, no, sorry.

I've been insincere? Please point out where I've been insincere or I'll have to conclude that you're simply making things up. What circular arguments? I ask because the last time I checked, you were the one making circular arguments. Also, it's not about last posts but about the quality of the arguments you've been making.

jpworld: Poverty is hell, once you make money you will be heaven.

I'm wt u on dis!

xgel: If God is so forgiving and loving why did He feel it necessary to create Hell?

please note that God did not creat hell but heaven,satan created it when trying to chalenge God.Do you remember in the bible when he boosted to overthrow God.

@ xgel

Let's answer your question with a question: If lovers are so compassionate to themselves why do they cause themselves heartbreak ? There is a major similarity to be drawn between your question & mine in that in both there is a dichotomy being drawn between love & pain (or punishment)