TrustAndObey

Honestly, Raf, just because "some",heck even if the majority of scholars agreed with you, doesn't make it a fact. It is still an opinion. Just because the majority of scholars think it says Yahweh is a 3 in 1 god, doesn't make it a fact. Any and all points concerning the Hebrew scriptures are going to be opnions. Mine included. To think otherwise is just acting like VPW. If all this was really about Raf's description of Yahweh, you should have said so at the beginning. I don't think anyone would have disagreed. Sure, we're all more moral than YOUR description of Yahweh. Wait it's more, right, ok, so we're more moral than a lot of people's description of Yahweh.. No still not good enough. We're more moral than the majority ,which also think when you die you really don't die, and their description of Yahweh.. Had you started with that, there's no one here that would disagree. I would have thought most having come from the cult, would have gotten passed the ego and pride of there being one perfect understanding that we have. From languages and cultures that have long been gone to ancient texts being burned, there are no 100% fact.. But, that's fine, if you wish to compare your morality to your own idea of Yahweh. No one will disagree. But there are other viewpoints just as valid. And yes, I do consider it a bit disingenuous at best to say a verse that doesn't even say "foreign" nor does it's context, yet to say it is a fact that it is ONLY talking about foreign people, sorry, but adding words and using other's who agree still just doesn't make it fact.

Once again, it was not a law. It was not black and white like you wish to represent it as. But neither did I say "It doesn't mean it". Why you setup strawmen is beyond me.

You act like it isn't being done now. Maybe you didn't grow up in a farming community here in America, but there are times even today when a family is either being kicked off their land, or being broken up by divorce, or whatever, and they work with their neighbors and hand their kids over to different ones they trust and their kids work on their neighbors farm until they can care for the,. That's giving your child over as an ebed and is the same type of scenario as it was then and yes, it is still done today. Again, people keep thinking an ebed is some sort of ungodly slavery, when that WAS against the torah.

You are free to your opinion. But the verse never mentioned foreign or otherwise. To read into that one or the other, is just trying to find fault. If it can be understood in positive light, you ignore it. That is being a bit dishonest in trying to determine morality, IMHO. If you were honestly trying to find where it was immoral, you would seek out where it says things that could not be taken in a positive light. Then you have a leg to stand on.

Unfortunately, you misrepresent what the torah actually says. Anyone looking to understand it negatively, will do so. That's your privilege and takes no thought. But it wasn't written to just take one mitzvah out of the whole and there you go, it says stone a woman, it's black and white! Anymore than I can take the warning on a DVD about 5 years max imprisonment for copying it. If it was a done deal that a non-virgin was stoned to death when she got married, or heck, even just the one about being caught in adultery, then Jesus would have had no ground to stand on when presented with the situation. Because you wish to view it as black and white, is fine. But then, that's not how it was to be understood then or now. As I stated at the beginning that to take the requirement of love out of it, it fails. And you have done just that. I'm not saying, oh, we should stone in love. That's being disingenuous about what I said, cause that is not what I am saying.

As mentioned before, even in English, the word "own" has quite a broad range of meaning. It doesn't hae to refer to having exclusive right of property/things, it can be used of just having limited rights over someone or something. To ignore that would be disingenuous. As for conscription, do I approve of it.. As a blanket statement, black and white, is not available. Everything has a context, and purpose, a reason. So while there are times I would not agree with conscription, there would be times when I have no issues with it. You live under the laws of the land, and the freedom a nation offers. And just as taxes are needed to keep that running, to ignore any and other needs would be foolhardy.

I'm not sure if I have enough time, but let's try and handle this verse with what time I have left.. First, of course we are not talking about slavery. And while I realize you are trying to read a negative in the "does not go out similar to the men", it actually is the opposite. In other words, men have less rights. She has more and should not be treated as the men. She has more because of the custom with women. She still has the right to leave. However, the second sentence really details what we are talking about. And that is she was "sold" as a handmaid to be a wife. It's important to note that it was actually rare for a man to marry anyone and NOT have paid for her. In fact any parents who did not sell their daughter for marriage(they all were considered a handmaid and an ebed, that was a normal term used) their parents would have been seen as dishonoring their daughter, their kin, and didn't care. Different than today were parents allow their child to go run free, have sex, marry whomever, and it's all good, let's not even mention the morality of the viruses these kids today pass on in their freedom. Yes, they were mostly all arranged marriages back then. And the marriage contract, which is what is mentioned in the second verse, was a commitment for life. I'm not sure how much exposure people have now days with arranged marriages, they are very common among Easterners, and I have quite a few friends who either are in arranged marriages or got out. And it's usually the guys who want out, even when they show me these great pictures of their arranged bride, I'm wondering they they would leave that for what we have in America. Lust gone wild. Irregardless of today, looking at the culture of then. In a family with sons and daughters, it was the way of life for the sons to marry(for a price) and bring their bride and build a place on their parents property and help their family. The daughter on the other hand, helped the parents, until it was time for her to be given in marriage for a price, that price represented the fact that she wouldn't be helping the family any more. Again, all life was centered around the family. And the loss of help was offset somewhat by the price the husband to be would pay. Remember Jacob working for many years to pay off Rachel's parents. Arranged marriages then and now wasn't done behind the daughters back as you seem to suggest or without her consent. The bride to be could just run off or refuse. But usually the parents who would be considered mature adults would have made sure it was a good household. Without money, though, there was no marriage. And yes,it was viewed as her labor in helping her family being sold to now help her new family whom she, her parents, the husband to be, the local priest, rabbi, and a host of others that would be involved in ensuring it was a good choice. Having said all that. What we find in this section of the torah though is some issues that could arrise in this contract and how to deal with them. The brides family sells her off. But she may be found "evil". That is, what her parents and herself represented her as being, didn't happen to be the case. She wasn't a virgin, etc.. And while some may think they put undue stress on that, you only have to look at today's sexually transmitted diseases to understand why they would want purity. But hey, maybe it's moral to have sex with multiple partners, never check each time or think the condom is good enough, and just find out later that you just infected a host of other parties. So if "evil" was found, she can be redeemed, bought back. Basically the money the man paid, is given back. The "husband" has no right to sell her to a foreign nation. But it's possible, having paid money for a bride, and receiving someone who didn't match the bill of goods sold that a good amount of people would have been involved in, and the family didn't want her back either, then he has a few choices of what to do with this gal. He could do as Joseph did and decide to keep Mary as his wife. The next sentence then talks about if the original marriage was to his son, and not him and that she would have all the rights as any other daughter-in-law. And the last sentence is referring to any married woman, that they are to always be granted 3 things, and if ever they are not granted, the woman is free to go. The bride payment can not be recovered. Like I said, prove me wrong. I gave the definition of the word.. The burden is now on you! How is it impossible to ignore those definitions and say you are not owned.

Forced slavery is considered kidnappng, and is punishable by death. https://www.ou.org/torah/mitzvot/taryag/mitzvah36/ A rose by any other name is still the same. Call it quitting. Call it leaving. Call it getting out of there. But then ask the HR person at your next job what they think of your "quitting' your previous job. Ask the company you just "left" what they think. You had a right to leave, sure. And so did the ebed have that right. But ask the person he left what he thinks of the situation. Both you and the ebed have that right, to leave, that is. What you call it is still the same. Running out on a commitment. Trust me, not a company alive spends money training someone for a position, and then not consider it running out when you just up and leave. Sure it depends on whose perspective, your ex-employer usually isn't happy for a reason, unless of course he was hoping to fire you! lol Technically, yes, it can be used. You can complain all day about the word, but I'm sure you've looked up the definition in the dictionary. So I'll leave it to you to explain how it can't fit! Because techincally your employer does "own" you and they have been known to use the word. 1st def) take, hold, or deploy something as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; to employ. 2nd def) the action of using something or the state of being used for some purpose.

I guess I assumed you knew, but yes, any ebed was free to go once their debt was paid or their contract was up. That included foreign ebeds, if they paid for the price paid for them or they fulfilled their contract, they were to be set free. It nust be noted that "slave" ebed is not the word for "forced" slavery. There is a hebrew word for this. So the word ebed itself means something different to what was done in America's south. Ebed is used of those who work for another and has quite a range of meaning. So yes, there are distinctions even among the ebed. From the basic person who was an ebed of the land to those in the temple or a soldier who was an ebed of the kingdom. The word itself described most workers. And in this section basically is saying that those who are poor and must sell themselves to survive should not be taken advantage of and given hard work just because they are desperate. This has not been addressed yet, no. But it will. Let's remember first that being an ebed was not "forced". It is a matter of a contract and responsibility that one was an ebed, so yes, it is running away from the contract that was agreed upon. Just as anyone leaving their employer today runs away from their commitment by not showing up or just leaving. As for a master "claiming" an ebed, there is nothing that gives him that right anymore than your emplyer could complain you ran from your committment. I realize you are caught up with the word "own" as if it means something uniquely different as if it can be treated as any normal piece of property, but it doesn't. Animals were to be returned right away if they left. Other property was to be returned. It is the view of the culture as everyone was "owned" by someone. Everyone had a master(lord). And even technically today the word "own" could be used in the case of an employer, it just isn't because it doesn't sound right. The english word means to have some rights over something, not necessarily exclusive. Your employer owns you for the time you are working for him in the sense that he hold rights to what you do during that time. But irregardless of today's vernacular, in the culture we are speaking of, which is what really matters, everyone was owned by someone. Your parents owned you since birth and until adopted or wed, never gave up that right. You were the property of your employer. You also were the property of the city you dwelled in. That doesn't mean they could do anything with you. It just meant they have some rights. And really is little different than today. We just don't like to use the word. Yet, if there was a draft, you are the property of this nation. There are laws, and as the property of the land you live in, they have rights that can be enforced. And when speaking of the ebed, the torah specifically gave them the right to leave, run away, and no, they did not have to go back.

You are correct, they could become an ebed either of those ways.. Let's start with the latter mentioned. Selling of a child as an ebed. The only way this would happen was already mentioned, that is the family is too poor to take care of themselves and it falls on the people to take care of them. If they still are unable to take care of themselves, then rather than allowing their children to die, they can sell them to another family in which case they were to be taken care of the same as an Iraelite servant where they were not to be given hard work as a normal servant. It would be very much like a temporary foster family. Except that is in one case. And that was rather than JUST trying to keep their kids alive, it was seen better that they could give their daughter to marry into a wealthy family that she would be family with priviledges rather than a servant, then they did that, but then, they weren't an ebed. And no, I wouldn't consider either of those scenarios a moral outrage. Sure, involuntary for the kids, but go ahead, let them die.. That sounds moral! They weren't allowed to sell them if they could afford to care for them, and they weren't treated as an ebed. Heck even an ebed isn't treated like what most think of as a slave either.. As for the other mention. Being born into it. Of course this would only be for the foreign servants with one slight exception and that is one of the verses you had brought up much earlier, but I won't handle just yet. Instead lets handle the foreign servant, and yes, their offspring. Being part of the ebed's family of course helped their family and went whereever their family lived and helped out. As mentioned earlier, every member of every family worked, and that was because it was needed just to survive in the agrarian culture they lived in. So yes, the sons and daughters worked with their parents. BUt as mentioned before, if they decided to leave the family they worked for, even though being from a foreign land, had the freedom to leave just as any Israel ebed and the Israelites were not permitted to force them to return. I'm curious as to which "protections" you are referring to, Raf, that the foreign born ebed did not have available?

One last thing before jumping into the specific verses you brought up, Raf. And that would be just a bit of background behind the ebedm, servants.. While Mark posted a portion from the Nelson Bible Dictionary, I think a few things need to be highlighted or even given a bit more background to from it. From the perspective of the torah, there were only 2 ways that someone actually became an ebed (besides coming from another land with other laws), but in regards to what Yahweh himself allowed, there were only 2. The first is found in Exodus 22:1-3 "if a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. " So rather than rot away in a prison learning with other prisoners a "better"(cough) trade, they were made to work off their debt. The second way is found in Leviticus 25:35ff "‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors" So if they were poor, first and foremost, love, and take care of them was the rule, in fact that was the rule for anyone. But if the poor themselves realize they can not take care of themselves, their family, and they do sell themselves as a servant,ebed, they were not to be treated as an ebed. Though technically they still were one. While these were the only 2 ways the torah allowed, there was one other class of servants, ebeds, handled in the torah. And those were ones coming from other nations with their own laws and contracts. Thus, how they became a servant,ebed, was out of the hands of other nations. But God allowed them to be purchased by the Israelites, and enjoy the freedoms other nations did not allow. So what are some of these freedoms? First, if the servant, ebed, decided to run away, no one was allowed to stop them. If they thought they could do better on their own, they had the right. Deuteronomy 23:13ff "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him." They are required to have a day off each week, the sabbath as well as enjoy the holy days and festival weeks. Exodus 20:10 "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns." Deut 16:10 "Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the Lord your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the Lord your God has given you. And rejoice before the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, the Levites in your towns, and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows living among you." Make no mistake, being a servant was work. But there was a reason they were one. They were not allowed to be mistreated, else they could go free. (Ex 21:26ff) Course, if they were mistreated, they could run away also. The main reason one has to remember that they were a servant, were either because they were to poor to take care of themselves and couldn't find anyone able to do so, or they were a thief and needed to pay back their debt.

That is an interesting sentence there Raf, "Not advancing the discussion...".. If only there was a discussion we would be much further along. But that's fine. The next point that must be considered in context with the mitzvot about the ebed, servant, is in regards to the family. Just as love is the cornerstone by which the torah rests, the family is the cornerstone by which the lives of those in that day and time were cemented. And while it may seem irrelevant, just as you may think the point of love is, it is just as important. In fact,both set the cornerstone for the entire Tanakh as set forth when God made man. First it was love, as man was made in the image of God, and man was made for a purpose, and given a task,to guard and take care of the earth. But from the creation and task of love, next God made a helper and a companion. And the two become one. Equality and love again being set forth from the beginning. There's one thing we do not get a choice in. That's our family and it is because of our parents that we have life. But not only is it because of them, but the Eastern perspective is that it is also for the sake of them. For their purpose. Just as original man was made for God's purpose. And while we can decide to not fufill that purpose, it doesn't change the fact nor the mutual responsbilities. That is the parents are responsbile to love and care for their kids, as much as the kids are responsible to fulfill the purpose the parents had for them. Parents could have aborted or not fed, clothed, or cared for their children, the opposite of love. And thus the opposite of love for kids was to dishonor the family by living apart from it except through mutual agreement. Course today, abortion rights are debated, as part of Parental rights, yet the remainder of Parental rights are slowly being removed one by one. An interesting side note in somewhat the same vein, are the discussions now taking place regarding autonomous bots. As artificial intelligence has become better and better to where bots now can care for themselves, repair themselves, and even to an extent replicate, governments and legal institutions are already trying to draft what rights there should be, who should be responsible, and what freedoms should be granted. No different than with humans, that is, we didn't make ourselves (That's the context that I am referring to). And while many parents had nothing in mind when they "made" a child, to the Eastern minds, that in itself would be a very unloving act. So you might ask, why this is important when it comes to an ebed, a servant. Their culture depended on the family structure, where evey member's effort was required in taking care of the day to day household. People didn't have money to just go to a store to buy food or clothing. They labored day and night in the fields, sat out for weeks straight with the livestock finding fresh grass, and every person in the household was relevant. To have a son, daughter just up and leave to do their own thing wasn't just dishonoring the family but it could be the difference between life and death. While child labor laws today sound great, many families would have never survived without the kids. And yes, one of the usages of an ebed is the son/daughter who works to help their family.

Thanks for the reminder WordWolf. I realize the impatience here. Only I'm not "waiting until I can articulate better".. Sure, time is short, so what i have time for I post. No one needs respond if there isn't on-topic. To post everything in one sitting isn't possible. To do it offline and then post it all would also be counterproductive since there are a number of premises that must be mentioned and handled first. Which is what I'm attempting to do. I'm not worried about being teased. It either is what I believe or isn't, and I have no problems learning from any and all responses positive/negative. But I appreciate your concern.

I'm sorry if you feel those questions are patronizing.. They weren't meant to be as you mentioned that I wasn't clear enough, and now that I attempt to clarify for you, you think I'm patronizing.. What to do.. lol.. Also, to further clarify, those questions weren't asking if you agree "the Bible says what it actually says".. No, the questions were about the CONTEXT. Again, back to one of my first main points, context is important. Talking about loving God and your neighbor are in the context of the Torah, not the context of Jesus, not Paul, not just included somewhere in the Bible. Really they were honest questions.. You do agree the Torah states these things. And it wasn't to be patronizing, it was because once again, your "strawman" sounded as if it didn't. So I'm not trying to assume you know or agree, instead I'm asking a polite question. That's all. Sorry you feel otherwise. My point is just that, that the guidance of the torah itself (not Jesus or Paul) teaches to love your neighbor as yourself.. Is it the whole of my answer, no. I think I mentioned in the very first post there are things that have to be understood, context, language, culture.. And just because I make a point doesn't mean it's true either. It's what I believe, and again I;m writing these point by point to hopefully elicit some feedback on the point. I'm working towards answering the 2 torah sections on servants, but there's still a few premises to be understood beforehand. And hey, maybe those premises are wrong. Am I still unclear?!

Since you posited this strawman as my position earlier, I think it best to take a couple steps back and ask a few questions so I can understand your thought process here. You talk about God being love. Which I believe I did say that when mentioning the 3 things God is said to be. However, it really was a minor point. The main point of when I was mentioning love however had to do with the torah and mitzvot themselves. That is,they are specifically and directly stated in the torah. You do agree that the torah specifically states to love God (Deut 6:5)? Correct? And you do agree that the torah specifically states to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18)? Correct? I only ask since you said: Yes, they were over a millenium away, but my mentioning Paul or Jesus wasn't because the torah forgot to mention it. I mentioned them as corroboration only. The Jews, Jesus,and Paul all considered love as the foundation and context for the torah and mitzvot. That was my point, and of course the reason why we are discussing, since certainly these sayings concerning servants seems to say something opposite. But that doesn't negate the fact that loving God and loving your neighbor are part of the torah itself, the same torah that contains the sayings about servants. You do agree with that correct? So the real question and point is how can it include both. If God is moral and just (and loving - I threw that in for you) on one hand say to love your neighbor as yourself, yet also give what seems like conflicting points about dealing with servants. If the word "love" in hebrew means to strongly give. And the torah states one should be doing that. Yet it also seems to say something opposite about servants. What gives? If you agree with the premise I just set, then it's time to dig into the servant/ebed matter. If you don't agree, then let's discuss what isn't clear, makes sense, or inaccurate.

Sorry, but trying to shift it to the readers and deny it, doesn't change facts. The moment you "attempt" to present my "position", that responsibility falls on you the person giving it. It is a straw man, it is not my position, and in order to avoid it, as most people do, they ask questions to ensure they accurately represent another's opinion before going off half cocked. Again, trying to shift blame, because I wasn't accurate or articulate enough, doesn't change facts. The moment you "attempt" to present my "position", that responsibility falls on you the person giving it. It is a straw man, it is not my position And unfortunately, neither you nor I I have unlimited time to spend on this. So unfortunately, patience is necessary. I will continue as long as you are willing to continue. I only ask that before you try to present my opinion and position, you ask questions to ensure you got it correct! That's all! Thanks.

I see the strawman fallacies have begun.. Maybe not purposefully and maybe because I wasn't clear in what I've explained thus far, or maybe because you have yet to be patient and let me fully explain yet (No, I haven't finished explaining). Either way, you have not explained my position accurately, and thus your opinions of your strawman are irrelevant.

Getting back to the torah, and its cornerstone, the ten sayings or as most know them as the ten commandments. One of the most fundamental things Jews learn about the ten sayings is that they are divided into 2 parts. The first 5 words/sayings that deal with honoring and loving God, and the second 5 that deal with honoring and loving your neighbor. Thus the saying of Jesus, that the first great commandment being love the Lord your God and the second similar to it, to love your neighbor as yourself, and upon these 2 hang all the torah and prophets. The apostle Paul then took this one step further, that is, in Galatians when he said that they all hang upon one word, that word being love. They all depend and hang on love. That is the crux of the matter here. If you take away the guidance and direction on “love”, then they all fail. And then you can take these verses here speaking about servants and misunderstand and think there is something evil going on. Sure. Easy to do. That is why it is imperative we get back to the context. It should suffice to say, that if something in the torah, a mitzvah, seems to be “unloving” or immoral, and out of character for which they depend upon, then either we misunderstand love, or we misunderstand the mitzvah. Going a step further, there are 3 attributes that I am aware of that God is specifically mentioned as actually being, encompassing. One is love, one is light, and the other is spirit. So what can we understand about love? There are many things in the world that are described as love, but what are we talking about when we are speaking about the love that the torah and mitzvot depend upon? There is brotherly love, that relational type bond. Of course there’s the coveting / lustful kind of love, the kind that drives one to desire “things” whether material or immaterial. There’s the passionate and sexual love. There’s what I call the debtor’s love that many relationships and marriages get founded upon, also known as quid pro quo. That mutual love because you gain from someone only to always be indebted and only lasts as long as until one side doesn’t give back for some reason or in the “right” amount of time or amount. All different things that could be called love to some extent. I tend to go back to what does the word “love” mean?! In Hebrew it is the word ‘ahav’. Made of three letters, aleph-hey-bet. And there is a two letter parent root word for “ahav”/love and that is the word “give”(hav)[hey-bet]. So the basis of love is to give with the Ancient Hebraic picture of the house/family and a person waving his arms to bring attention to it. In Eastern philosophy, taking care of one’s family is prime directive numero uno. What the family needs, you give. Now, with love, we take that picture one step further and add the aleph. The ox’s head that stands for strength. So then not only is it giving, but now strong giving. Emphasis on the strength. Love is strong giving. It is the actual process of giving that develops the very connection between the giver and the receiver. The more giving that one does, the greater is the connection. Why? The process of giving is a vehicle through which the giver through his act of giving is able to, through a physical gift (or even a verbal comment), give of himself to another. This act of giving something is not merely helping another. For sure, giving is helping another, but it is much more than that. Giving is a method that enables us to make a connection to another. When we give to another, that which we give to him/her, could have been utilized to further our own self. In stead, we choose to take this object, which could have been utilized for our own needs and instead, use it for someone else. Thus love is not selfish and all the other things 1 Corinthians 13 speaks of. And it is with this love, that is required when speaking of any part of the torah. Because without it, these mitzvot are all just actions without the correct context, reason, or purpose. But with this love in heart, mind, and action, the torah then can be understood properly.

In getting back to the context, I stated the torah should be seen as a wise schoolteacher guiding it's students who are still learning, until they can be mature in living rightly. Until one understands the basis, the context, the reasons, the purpose, until then, one is guided(torah) by these directions(mitzvot). Because once once gains that understanding and is able to live accordingly, then one may understand how David or Jesus' disciples could do the things they did. As Paul said "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. But now we see only through a dim mirror; but then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully.." So while we today have been given the spirit, that it might guide us in the ways even greater than the torah, we still only see in part. The whole of the torah, the context of it all, is given in the ten sayings known as the ten commandments. It is the cornerstone of the torah so to speak, upon which if they were taken away the torah would crumble and you end up with misunderstanding the torah such as being done here. So what about these ten sayings, what makes them so crucial, and how are they relevant to the topic you, Raf, and I are discussing today? Unfortunately, I see the time and I can't answer in full, so please patience my friend.

In most any book we read, any amount of writing, context is key. Without it, the Bible itself says "...there is no God...". But of course, simply put the very phrase is out of it's contextual sentence. Which is why when we read these statements taken from the Tanakh, the first thing we need to key into is what is the context. And while many may know the context, it can easily be lost or misunderstood, especially in certain areas where long lists and items are presented. For me when it comes to the topic and verses given at hand, the best place I can think of to start with understanding context is the overall context of the "torah". That is the 613 mitzvot given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Of course, here again, we come up with a word that is traditionally translated as commandments(mitzvot) but in reality the word itself means directions given to those on a journey. So just as the Torah is God's guidance and teaching given to his people, according to the Jews, it contains 613 mitzvot, or directions given to those trying to live God's way, and are taking that journey. And many may wonder what is the difference, and what is wrong with calling these law and commandments like the English, Latin, and Greek bibles do.. And there isn't anything necessarily wrong, as long as one understands the difference. Jesus said that the law was made for man not the other way around. And that is correct. When his disciples were plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath, for which the torah(guidance) was against, it is just that, guidance. When David and his men were hungry and he took of the shewbread from the temple, again something that goes against the mitzvah(directions on one's journey to live God's way), it is not a black and white, cold , hard, and fast rule or law. It is not a commandment that does not allow room. But as the book of Romans states, then should we sin(miss the mark) that grace should abound? Heaven forbid. That's not the point. The point isn't that the totah and it's mitzvot's should be ignored, but rather they should be understood as given. A wise schoolteacher guiding it's students who are still learning, until they can be mature in righteousness. Until they are ready. That is the the beginning context of understanding the Torah, and unfortunately, many times misunderstood. And today with the usual "dispensational" view, much of the Tanakh is glossed over as old and irrelevant. Yet it isn't. Neither are these sentences that you, Raf, have brought up. Nay, they are very relevant today. But again, I can't just type out everything at once. Patience.

You seem pretty anxious here, Raf.. I did mention I was a little out of time yesterday, so patience is key! I'm still not sure how much I will be able to cover today. But we'll see.. I answer according to what time I have, I can do no better, sorry! I'm human, what more do you expect?! Understanding scripture isn't just a quick A, B, C, there you go.. It's not necessarily complicated either, but I do want to ensure that I am accurate and do not give my God whom I do server a bad name by speaking presumptuously. That doesn't mean that what I say is 100% accurate, but I am trying my best to double check and ensure what I do present is the best "I" can do. Which means it will take a little longer than if we just sat and talked face to face. Does that make sense? Are you OK with that?

I understand what you are saying here, only I must admit, I think you are misunderstanding both the premise and the situation. Actually you could go free before seven years for quite a few reasons, yet it all depends on the situation. And yes you could take your wife and kids, with one except for which I will have to handle later. But feel free to explain why you feel this is the fact. I understand you are taking this one sentence to mean this, but are there other things that help you reach that understanding in this verse, context? Hebrew definitions or word studies?

Remember, that first, "ebeddery" is quite a number of different things, so we need to look at each "morally" questionable occurrence, and we also must limit that to what Yahweh allows, and not just any one in the writings.. And yes, those 3 sentences are considered a portion of the overall "torah"(guidance/teachings) given by Yahweh to Moses at Mt.Sinai and therefore are a part of this discussion, in case you thought I was trying to exclude them. And just so we are still clear, I have no objection to these torah's when understood in their correct context. And I was aware of these 3 already, but as mentioned before, there may be many I am still not aware of. Only, I'm a little out of time at the moment to expand, please continue if you have more, I don't object at all.. Full disclosure only helps us communicate better.

I'm not sure how much profit we could get from actually looking at all the different verses that show the complexity of this word, since it is used everywhere from those who just worship gods (the word worship being ebed), to those who take care (serve) of their brother/sisters. It is used of the most basic of words for any type of work performed by a person as well as used of those who are in a servant/master type relationship, to those called a "bondsman/woman" who desired to continue to serve their master even after their appointed time (although the Jewish midrash says even this time is limited as they must be set free at the jubilee). However, it is not used for those forced into labor with the exception of those who stole and by edict of the courts must work to repay what they stole at which time they are free. I think what might be best to get into next is to get into what Yahweh is noted as specifically saying in the Tanakh to get an understanding of His ways. Feel free to chime in here, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall,and that's a bit boring with little purpose!