re: #351 Bob Levin

I was explaining the situation. Did you already know those details? If not, I think the information is relevant, especially to make the point the the English translation doesn’t accurately describe the reality.

The claims that this or that translation doesn’t accurately describe the reality are the staple of religious apologetics. Sorry, you haven’t shown that there is anything wrong with the translation.

Is your definition of ‘slave’ a guy who owes you money? Remind me not to borrow money from you.

Slave is not someone who merely owes you money and there is nothing in the text about that. Moreover, even if there was anything about that, that’s still slavery, with the slave being a property (which can be sold), with physical punishment and whatnot, with slaves being forced to marry and the wife and children staying the property of the master (“If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.”). Etc. etc. etc. I don’t see how “debt” would change anything. And even if this explanation were true for Hebrew slaves, it would still not apply to non-Hebrew slaves who were simply bought from foreign nations.

No translation. Learn some Hebrew and study some Talmud.

No translation. I’m sticking to it.

Meh. You’re just stalling.