[js1138]

You ignored my question. If you want to say the Bible has it right then respond directly to the words of the Bible, not some intrepreter. The words in the Bible are clear enough for a child to understand. Now forget all your fancy professors and explain why it is OK to beat a slave to the point he is disabled for two days, and why this is described as a loss to the one doing the beating.

Personally I don't care what you think about indentured servant. Talk to me about slavery. And about how non-Hebrew slaves were aquired and treated.

I have made my argument from the words of the Bible itself. Do the same for me or drop the discussion.

[exmarine]

You ignored my question. If you want to say the Bible has it right then respond directly to the words of the Bible, not some intrepreter. The words in the Bible are clear enough for a child to understand. Now forget all your fancy professors and explain why it is OK to beat a slave to the point he is disabled for two days, and why this is described as a loss to the one doing the beating.

Context context context. It's everything. You don't understand it and I don't want to be your teacher, so suffice to say that the bible must be interpreted in the exact sense as the writer intended. In order to do that, one must understand not only who is speaking, and the relationship of that person with the object, but also the cultural factors. You understand none of these. You are interpreting the passage in a "wooden" literal sense and that is incorrect because you are not taking anything into account other than your 95 octane bias. So, unless you can speak to me about the passages in the context IN WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED, we have nothing to talk about. I happen to agree with the commentary that I posted and believe it is the correct interpreation of the passage. You also ignore the fact mentioned in the commentary that hebrews did not practice traditional slavery - it was bondservanthood.

Personally I don't care what you think about indentured servant. Talk to me about slavery. And about how non-Hebrew slaves were aquired and treated.

The slaves spoken of in these passages were not chattel slaves, so I don't care what you think about a type of slavery that didn't exist in Israel in those days. Haven't you learned your lesson from previous posts that it is not a good idea to argue about a historical topic that YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT?