The Problem of Slavery in the Bible

[Houseman]

So I have to prove that the word for prostitution in my language means prostitution in my language? ...

In my research, I'm seeing that every source I find agrees that the word is broader than just "prostitution".

For example:
- Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3
- Theological Dictionary of the new Testament
- Dictionary of New Testament Theology (according to this site, since I can't find a more direct link)
- A Greek-English Lexicon
- English-Greek Dictionary

Wikitionary does, however, distinguish between the ancient, which it says includes "fornication", and the modern, which is just "prostitution".

 

[Specter Von Baren]

So I have to prove that the word for prostitution in my language means prostitution in my language? I guess that's what I get for engaging with Jehovites.

Αποτελέσματα για: "Π"

www.greek-language.gr

πορνεία, ἡ, εκπόρνευση, πορνεία, σε Δημ.
πορνεῖον, τό, οίκος ανοχής, χαμαιτυπείο, σε Αριστοφ.
πορνεύω, I. παρέχω τον εαυτό μου, εκδίδομαι — Παθ., λέγεται για γυναίκα, είμαι ή γίνομαι πόρνη, σε Ηρόδ., Δημ. κ.λπ. ΙI. αμτβ. στην Ενεργ., = Παθ., σε Λουκ.
πόρνη, ἡ (πέρνημι), γυναίκα που εκδίδεται, σε Αριστοφ.
πορνίδιον, τό, υποκορ. του πόρνη, σε Αριστοφ. κ.λπ.
πορνικός, -ή, -όν (πόρνη), αυτός που ανήκει ή ταιριάζει στην πόρνη, πορνικὸν τέλος, φόρος που πληρώνουν όσοι εξασκούν πορνεία, σε Αισχίν.
πορνοβοσκέω, μέλ. -ήσω, διατηρώ πορνείο (οίκο ανοχής), σε Αριστοφ.
πορνοβοσκία, ἡ, το επάγγελμα του πορνοβοσκοῦ, σε Αισχίν.
πορνο-βοσκός, ὁ, αυτός που διατηρεί οίκο ανοχής, σε Αισχίν., Δημ.πορνο-φίλας, ὁ (φιλέω), αυτός που αγαπά τις πόρνες, σε Ανθ.

Got any fun Greek insults you could share with us?

 

[Neuromancer]

The Ancient Greek word for fornication is μοιχεια. Paul himself makes the distinction between the two a bit earlier in Προς Κορινθιους Α'

Α’ Κορ.ς 6:9,10 Η δεν εξεύρετε ότι οι άδικοι δεν θέλουσι κληρονομήσει την βασιλείαν του Θεού; Μη πλανάσθε· ούτε πόρνοι ούτε ειδωλολάτραι ούτε μοιχοί ούτε μαλακοί ούτε αρσενοκοίται ούτε κλέπται ούτε πλεονέκται ούτε μέθυσοι ούτε λοίδοροι ούτε άρπαγες θέλουσι κληρονομήσει την βασιλείαν του Θεού

Got any fun Greek insults you could share with us?

Most Greek insults are extremely vulgar, so I am wary to do so given this is a PG-13 forum. The most common Greek insult, for example, is Μαλακας (Malakas) which means masturbator, but it's a catch-all word, often meaning "fool", "asshole", but can also be used in an endearing matter, and it's not uncommon for friends to call each other a malaka in friendly banter.

 

[Houseman]

The Ancient Greek word for fornication is μοιχεια. Paul himself makes the distinction between the two a bit earlier in Προς Κορινθιους Α'

Α’ Κορ.ς 6:9,10 Η δεν εξεύρετε ότι οι άδικοι δεν θέλουσι κληρονομήσει την βασιλείαν του Θεού; Μη πλανάσθε· ούτε πόρνοι ούτε ειδωλολάτραι ούτε μοιχοί ούτε μαλακοί ούτε αρσενοκοίται ούτε κλέπται ούτε πλεονέκται ούτε μέθυσοι ούτε λοίδοροι ούτε άρπαγες θέλουσι κληρονομήσει την βασιλείαν του Θεού

That appears to be the word for adultery:

G3432 - moichos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G3432 - μοιχός moichós, moy-khos'; perhaps a primary word; a (male) paramour; figuratively, apostate:—adulterer.

www.blueletterbible.org

Fornication - porneia
Adultery - moichos

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

Yes, because I'm asking you to explain how any reasonable person would have known that you switched arguments, and you aren't answering (despite saying that you would, but I guess that was a lie). So yes, you're stalling and deflecting.

Right so to clarify you misunderstood one of my posts, making an assumption that was wrong, and are insisting that is my fault? This is interesting because several of your arguments in this topic hinge upon fault lying with the person who has misinterpreted things. This is an obvious case of hypocrisy, where you're insisting one rule for you and another for everyone else. Since I'm sure you don't want that, you're left with two options:
A) Fault does lie with the misinterpreter for not doing their research, and this whole sideline you've got going is just an ego driven tantrum because you don't like your mistakes being noted, or
B) Fault lies with the misinterpreted for not being clear enough in which case, on top of owing f0x an apology for your accusations early in the topic, all you've said about people misreading the Bible becomes the fault of the Bible.
Pick your flavour of wrong, House!

God can control everything ≠ God does control everything.
It was never a premise that God does control everything.

If god can control everything and wants the best for us while knowing some true morality, but then doesn't act to let us know clearly, then either one of those premises is false or your god is not a moral entity. Either way, fallible, so why be used as a guideline for morality?

This isn't even changing the ruling, this is just that the ruling no longer applies because certain conditions have been met.

Given the example of soda, the full rule could be "None of my children who are unable to procure food for themselves shall drink soda, outside of special occasions"
If you are unable to procure food for yourself, as if you were a toddler, you would hear "you are not allowed to drink soda". As a teenager you would hear "yes, you can drink soda". The children only hear "yes you can" or "no you can't". They do not hear the full explanation of the rule. There is one rule, and it is consistent. A child may just fall on one side of the rule or the other depending on their circumstances.

It's like you're saying that it's inconsistent that some people have a driver's license and others don't. It's not inconsistent. Some people qualify for and apply for a driver's license, and others don't. In certain places, once you pass a certain age, the "rules change", and you need to re-test in order to keep your license. Is this the government changing it's mind? "You were qualified before, but now since you're 75 years old, I've changed my mind, you're no longer qualified"?

Ooh, you possibly shouldn't have used a metaphor about rules changing specifically over time, because that's what I'm getting at. In your metaphor, the 75 year old is the Bible. Time has moved on, things have changed. We need to rethink and readdress the issue at hand (the 75 year old/the Bible) because time had moved on and things have changed. You've used an analogy that proves my point, not yours I'm afraid

Where? In the Strong's Definitions section? That reads:

πορνεία porneía, por-ni'-ah; from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:—fornication.

In Thayer's Greek Lexicon? That reads:

πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω), the Sept. for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulg. fornicatio (and (Revelation 19:2) prostitutio)); used
a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general

So no, it doesn't mean prostitution. Neither of the two definitions say it does.
Post a screenshot and then draw a big red circle around what causes you to think that the word means "prostitution", because I'm not seeing it.

Once again, I advise you to read your own source again. Carefully this time. It does say that porneia means adultery...in a section specifically marked "Biblical usage". Meaning its not actually what the word means, just what scholars have decided the Bible thinks it means. Thats like if you and me were at a fancy dinner party and I asked you to pass the salt, then got outraged when you handed me salt because in the context of the fancy dinner party the word "salt" actually means "sugar". If you're just going to go around decided any word actually means anything, how can the Bible be trusted? It ceases to be the flawless work of a supreme deity and becomes the muddled work of man

Enough so that a reasonable person (preferably your peers, if we're talking academics and scholars) wouldn't blame you for not missing something.

I mean it seems me an Neuromancer are both academics and we're pointing out things you've missed, overlooked or not thought through. Does that mean you have failed your research?

It's only easy to misinterpret the bible if you don't do your research, and if you don't do your research, that's your own fault.
It's about as easy as failing a math test when you don't attend classes or study.

Right now you are arguing with me and Neuromancer because we have different interpretations of a single word. Looks like its pretty easy to misinterpret the Bible if you ask me

I agree, nobody said that "the book must never change". It's your argument that the book changing makes the book invalid, but you've yet to explain how that makes sense. In fact, your other argument is that change is good, and even that the more change, the better!

My point isn't that the Bible is untrustworthy because it changes. It's untrustworthy because it's inconsistent. It doesn't get updated, or rethought or reassessed and so we're left with various versions, various translations, various retellings. Its not updating, its mutating

It doesn't matter whether or not the book is "done". What matters is whether or not the book is God's Word. If it's God's Word, we should listen to it, because it contains instructions for us. Whether or not those instructions will be updated sometime in the future is irrelevant.

It's your argument that the bible is outdated. Saying "it might be updated sometime later!" doesn't make it outdated. When that update comes out, then you can rightly say that the previous book is outdated, but not before.

And you know it's not already been updated...how, exactly? Remember, your god is all powerful, all loving and wants us to know the perfect morality he can conceive of. It would be an easy matter to tell satan to eff off for the day and go write some mortal laws so he can best nudge us towards that perfect morality. To not do so is, well, immoral.

There's no contradiction between the law and the Bible. Jesus never said "go and take slaves", or "go and kidnap people from other nations, making them your slaves" or "slavery is a right!" He only said "if you're a slave, continue to obey your master".

The regulation of a thing relies on the allowance of the thing. What Jesus said was to regulate, not allow or disallow.

Choose another example.

So Jesus doesn't disallow slavery (and indeed tells them to be good slaves, not to not be slaves at all) but modern law does? Ta-daa, that's a contradiction! Choose another rebuttal

It's your argument. Does your argument rely on a bunch of maybes? Well then "maybe" you're wrong about the whole thing?

Your argument has just as many maybes, you just don't like saying them out loud

Please tell me where in the bible it says to do such a thing. Or are you working backwards through inductive reasoning again?

Please tell me which countries are currently run by the Nazi party. You're the one who wanted to bring up historical examples of immorality, you don't get to back out because I can bring up more blood soaked examples from your side of things

Vaccinations are not a moral issue. The bible is a moral guide.
If you want to talk about the morality of spreading infectious diseases, that's covered under "All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them" and "love your neighbor as yourself".

Ah ah ah House, you never mentioned morality in your original statement that lead us down this path. You only asked for "what's best for us" not "whats best for us morally" so go put those goalposts back. I used the advancement of medical science as an example because there's no examples of it in the Bible. No recommendations, no warnings, no advice. And if the bible didn't see that coming...can it truly be omnniscient?

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

My reply got half undone first time I posted it, I am annoyed at having to rewrite it as an edit and still looking for glitches in what I may have written...

EDIT: Ugh, think I got them all. We thank you for your patience

 

[fOx]

Good for you. Where's your link?

You... you know he's greek, right? That his first language is greek? That he lives in greece, and speaks it every day?

 

[Trunkage]

You... you know he's greek, right? That his first language is greek? That he lives in greece, and speaks it every day?

Are you impinging on his Freedom to Mistranslate?

 

[Buyetyen]

Are you impinging on his Freedom to Mistranslate?

I mean, who are the Greeks to selfishly decide what words in Greek mean? Apparently Athens never got around to inventing freedom of speech.
/s

 

[Trunkage]

I mean, who are the Greeks to selfishly decide what words in Greek mean? Apparently Athens never got around to inventing freedom of speech.
/s

To be fair, people have been mistranslating for millenia.

I had a priest friend who would have four different translations up before he wrote the sermon each week. I know it was English, Greek and Hebrew and the last I cant remember exactly. Maybe Latin or Aramaic. There were big differences in each translation

 

[Houseman]

Now that's what I call music 74

Right so to clarify you misunderstood one of my posts,

You're still deflecting.

Well since you are unwilling and/or unable to answer my question by explaining how any reasonable person was supposed to understand that you had switched topics, despite being asked multiple times to do so, I can only conclude that you lied, and that you are continuing to lie. Moving on.

If god can control everything and wants the best for us while knowing some true morality, but then doesn't act to let us know clearly, then either one of those premises is false or your god is not a moral entity. Either way, fallible, so why be used as a guideline for morality?

You're assuming that God hasn't already acted to let us clearly know about the true morality. He has. It's the Bible.

Ooh, you possibly shouldn't have used a metaphor about rules changing specifically over time

In none of those scenarios did the rules change over time. The rule was consistent. "Unless you meet conditions X,Y, and Z, then A is not allowable". Someone meeting or failing to meet the conditions over time does not mean that the rule has changed.

Time has moved on, things have changed. We need to rethink and readdress the issue at hand (the 75 year old/the Bible) because time had moved on and things have changed.

Prove it. I've asked you before to demonstrate how the bible is no longer relevant, but you haven't yet be able to offer even one example that withstood scrutiny.

Once again, I advise you to read your own source again. Carefully this time. It does say that porneia means adultery...in a section specifically marked "Biblical usage". Meaning its not actually what the word means, just what scholars have decided the Bible thinks it means. Thats like if you and me were at a fancy dinner party and I asked you to pass the salt, then got outraged when you handed me salt because in the context of the fancy dinner party the word "salt" actually means "sugar". If you're just going to go around decided any word actually means anything, how can the Bible be trusted? It ceases to be the flawless work of a supreme deity and becomes the muddled work of man

I asked you to provide a screenshot from this page with a big red circle around what causes you to think that the word means "prostitution".
Please do that.

I've offered my evidence. You've yet to offer any. Until then, I'm not even going to consider your baseless argument.

I mean it seems me an Neuromancer are both academics and we're pointing out things you've missed, overlooked or not thought through.

No you haven't.

Right now you are arguing with me and Neuromancer because we have different interpretations of a single word.

It's not arguing so much as teaching others why they are wrong with overwhelming amounts of evidence.

It's untrustworthy because it's inconsistent. It doesn't get updated, or rethought or reassessed and so we're left with various versions, various translations, various retellings. Its not updating, its mutating

A) You haven't demonstrated that it's inconsistent.
B) Something not being updated or rethought or reassessed does not make it outdated or untrustworthy if it doesn't need to be updated. You've yet to demonstrate that it needs to be updated.
C) People getting the book wrong is not necessarily the fault of the book.

And you know it's not already been updated...how, exactly?

Because I can compare the bible I have now with the bible from 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago, and see that it hasn't been updated with any new laws, restrictions, guidelines, etc. Pretty simple.

So Jesus doesn't disallow slavery (and indeed tells them to be good slaves, not to not be slaves at all) but modern law does? Ta-daa, that's a contradiction!

That's not what a contradiction is.
If I don't say anything on the subject of say, euthanasia, I haven't contradicted someone who says that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed.

Not disallowing something does not contradict with disallowing something. Not disallowing is passive. Disallowing is active.
Approving of something is active, and would contradict disallowing something.

"If you are a slave, obey your master" does not contradict with "slavery is not allowed" in the same way that "If you are overdosing, call 911" does not contradict with "drugs are not allowed".

Please tell me which countries are currently run by the Nazi party. You're the one who wanted to bring up historical examples of immorality, you don't get to back out because I can bring up more blood soaked examples from your side of things

Zero. See? I answered your question. Why didn't you answer mine?

I'm not backing out of anything. You made a claim, but you can't back it up, nor can you refute the flaw I pointed out, and now you're deflecting again.

You're claiming that the bible sucks as a moral code because you think it caused the crusades. I'm asking you why you think it caused the crusades. You can't answer the question because you know that the bible didn't actually cause the crusades. But you can't say that because then you wouldn't have an argument. So instead of answering honestly and conceding the point, you deflect.

Ah ah ah House, you never mentioned morality in your original statement that lead us down this path. You only asked for "what's best for us" not "whats best for us morally" so go put those goalposts back. I used the advancement of medical science as an example because there's no examples of it in the Bible. No recommendations, no warnings, no advice. And if the bible didn't see that coming...can it truly be omnniscient?

Read post #76 again. See what I quoted you saying? "Its why I feel you shouldn't get your morality from an ancient book because why on earth should you?"
You brought up getting morality from the Bible. I disagreed. This discussion has always been about what's best from us in a moral sense. Even in your response in post #79 you mention morality again.

Any reasonable person can clearly see that we've been talking about whether or not getting your moral code from the bible is a good idea.

See how I cleared up that misunderstanding by explaining and showing my logic?

 

[fOx]

Are you impinging on his Freedom to Mistranslate?

Not the right. Only the wisdom

I mean, who are the Greeks to selfishly decide what words in Greek mean? Apparently Athens never got around to inventing freedom of speech.
/s

Atleast he's bringing us all together.

 

[Buyetyen]

To be fair, people have been mistranslating for millenia.

I had a priest friend who would have four different translations up before he wrote the sermon each week. I know it was English, Greek and Hebrew and the last I cant remember exactly. Maybe Latin or Aramaic. There were big differences in each translation

Oh sure. Mistranslation is one thing. Telling a native speaker you understand their language better than they do even after they show their work? That's just trying to save face and failing to comedic effect.

 

[Houseman]

Telling a native speaker you understand their language better than they do even after they show their work?

Yeah, okay, all seven of my sources are wrong, and him and his one source is right. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Man, it's too bad that none of those scholars and professors who wrote all that material ever asked Neuromancer for his opinion. Would have saved us all a lot of grief.

 

[SupahEwok]

Yeah, okay, all seven of my sources are wrong, and him and his one source is right. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Man, it's too bad that none of those scholars and professors who wrote all that material ever asked Neuromancer for his opinion. Would have saved us all a lot of grief.

He mad.

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah, okay, all seven of my sources are wrong, and him and his one source is right. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Man, it's too bad that none of those scholars and professors who wrote all that material ever asked Neuromancer for his opinion. Would have saved us all a lot of grief.

Didn’t this all start with you stating that slavery was a societal good and when questioned you refused to expand on that point? I think we got as far as the New Testament has a different contract... but somehow you said the original comment, which wouldn’t be relevant then? I don’t think we even got to how the Israelites could sell their daughter in such situations for life times. It would have saved us a lot of grief because all these other pages have been pretty irrelevant to that point.

I personally can understand why mistranslations happen, because different languages say different things in the Bible. I also understand that the church, as an institution, doesn’t really care what the Bible says. It’s got a message and the Bible needs to fit that message. The word could have change meaning the millennia and today’s definition can be different from them. I actually don’t care. I’m still sticking around for the initial answer from like, what?, page 2. And trying to crack some jokes becuase a lot of this is just pedantry on both sides, and it’s boring.

You charged us with not understanding the context of that initial statement, calling us bad. I’m still waiting for the context that makes that statement okay. If you’ve think you’ve been convincing and said all your arguments, great. I can move on, knowing what type of person you are. If not, say your piece. This Trumpian unwarranted attack on people just because they questioned you is really tiring.

(This 6 page diversion maybe interesting for you guys. Keep going if you need to. Sorry for bringing back on topic,)

 

[Houseman]

Didn’t this all start with you stating that slavery was a societal good and when questioned you refused to expand on that point?

I didn't refuse to expand on anything. I was asked some questions (the last one was a yes or no question which I DID follow up with a longer explanation of how God sets the definition for "moral" and "immoral") and I answered them. Nobody asked me to expand. Nobody asked me to elaborate. Nobody asked better questions that required a more complex answer. fOx just stuck a label on me, as is used so commonly by certain types on the internet who want to shut down discussion and draw lines unto "us" vs "them".

I think we got as far as the New Testament has a different contract... but somehow you said the original comment, which wouldn’t be relevant then?

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding that sentence.

1) Who's we? fOx and I? Palindrome and I? I think the New Testament only got brought up after the first issue with fOx was done with.
2) What is the "original comment" you're referring to?
3) When wouldn't that "original comment" be relevant?

I don’t think we even got to how the Israelites could sell their daughter in such situations for life times. It would have saved us a lot of grief because all these other pages have been pretty irrelevant to that point.

You're right, nobody has brought that up yet. Would you like to discuss it? What about selling daughters into slavery, for life?

I’m still sticking around for the initial answer from like, what?, page 2

I hope you're not waiting for me. What "initial answer"? What was the question?

You charged us with not understanding the context of that initial statement, calling us bad.

"We", "Us", what are you talking about? Who did I call "bad"? What part did you have in this?

If you’ve think you’ve been convincing and said all your arguments, great.

Arguments about what? Slavery? Whether or not f0x leapt to conclusions? Whether or not the bible is a good moral guide? What πορνεία means?

If not, say your piece.

I will gladly say however many pieces you want, but first I need to know what you're talking about.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

You're still deflecting.

Well since you are unwilling and/or unable to answer my question by explaining how any reasonable person was supposed to understand that you had switched topics, despite being asked multiple times to do so, I can only conclude that you lied, and that you are continuing to lie. Moving on.

”Deflection!” is a bold criticism to make while insisting we move on from a situation where you have to admit a mistake either way. So no I don’t think we’ll be doing that. You’ve picked Option B then, that if something is misinterpreted it is the fault of the thing being misinterpreted. So in addition to you now being at fault for f0x supposedly misinterpreted you, we can instantly render all those arguments you’ve made about people misinterpreting the Bible null and void because now, according to your conditions here, that’s the fault of the bible for being too unclear. And if the Bible is at fault then it’s not infallible. And if it’s not infallible then its worth no more as a source of morality than any other millennia old text

You're assuming that God hasn't already acted to let us clearly know about the true morality. He has. It's the Bible.

A text written by humans, compiled by humans and mistranslated by humans. If all that can be considered the invisible hand of god at work then so can modern laws.

In none of those scenarios did the rules change over time. The rule was consistent. "Unless you meet conditions X,Y, and Z, then A is not allowable". Someone meeting or failing to meet the conditions over time does not mean that the rule has changed.

Yeah you’re still saying the passage of time should result in different conditions coming into play. So how about two thousand years being enough passage of time?

Prove it. I've asked you before to demonstrate how the bible is no longer relevant, but you haven't yet be able to offer even one example that withstood scrutiny.

This entire topic was started because Jesus has no problem with slavery while the modern world does. We started with one example, how many more do you want?

I asked you to provide a screenshot from this page with a big red circle around what causes you to think that the word means "prostitution".
Please do that.


I've offered my evidence. You've yet to offer any. Until then, I'm not even going to consider your baseless argument.

I can search more later but for now here’s two And you’ll notice they’re actual Greek translators not the dubious biblical usage translator you provided.

No you haven't.

With a whole discussion on how we can understand a word and you can’t, yes we have.

It's not arguing so much as teaching others why they are wrong with overwhelming amounts of evidence.

Ah yes your sterling evidence of telling a native Greek speaker he doesn’t Greek and resorting to “Nuh-uh!”like your previous paragraph. How very overwhelming

A) You haven't demonstrated that it's inconsistent.
B) Something not being updated or rethought or reassessed does not make it outdated or untrustworthy if it doesn't need to be updated. You've yet to demonstrate that it needs to be updated.
C) People getting the book wrong is not necessarily the fault of the book.

If bible says slavery is okay and the rest of the world disagrees either the bible is wrong and needs updating or you’re sayingthenworld is wrong and slavery is okay. Pick which.
As for C, yeah no you’ve made it clear that if someone misinterprets something it’s that things fault. Can’t have it both ways

Because I can compare the bible I have now with the bible from 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago, and see that it hasn't been updated with any new laws, restrictions, guidelines, etc. Pretty simple.

That strikes me as a bad thing. We already know god has no issue updating the bible, we had the switch from old to new testaments. That modern laws might be compiled into a new new testament is not beyond the realm of possibility

That's not what a contradiction is.
If I don't say anything on the subject of say, euthanasia, I haven't contradicted someone who says that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed.

Not disallowing something does not contradict with disallowing something. Not disallowing is passive. Disallowing is active.
Approving of something is active, and would contradict disallowing something.

"If you are a slave, obey your master" does not contradict with "slavery is not allowed" in the same way that "If you are overdosing, call 911" does not contradict with "drugs are not allowed".

If you’re saying “if you’re a slave, be a good slave” then you’resaying you’re fine with slavery. Because they shouldn’t not be slaves, they should be good slaves. So if your boy Jesus condones slavery but modern laws do that’s a contradiction

Zero. See? I answered your question. Why didn't you answer mine?

I'm not backing out of anything. You made a claim, but you can't back it up, nor can you refute the flaw I pointed out, and now you're deflecting again.

You're claiming that the bible sucks as a moral code because you think it caused the crusades. I'm asking you why you think it caused the crusades. You can't answer the question because you know that the bible didn't actually cause the crusades. But you can't say that because then you wouldn't have an argument. So instead of answering honestly and conceding the point, you deflect.

If the answer is zero why did you even bring the Nazis up in the first place?
Sorry are you genuinely trying to argue the Crusades were not a religious thing? They were supported by the Papacy, used the Bible to support their actions, wore biblical symbols. The morality of the Bible guided them to warfare and slaughter

Read post #76 again. See what I quoted you saying? "Its why I feel you shouldn't get your morality from an ancient book because why on earth should you?"
You brought up getting morality from the Bible. I disagreed. This discussion has always been about what's best from us in a moral sense. Even in your response in post #79 you mention morality again.

Any reasonable person can clearly see that we've been talking about whether or not getting your moral code from the bible is a good idea.

See how I cleared up that misunderstanding by explaining and showing my logic?

Your claim is the bible should be the ultimate moral code because it is based on an omniscient deity’s vision. But if that omniscience didn’t seethings like modern medicine coming, is it really all that omniscient? And since it is it, how can it be that ultimate moral guide. I ran through this in my last post, was this time round easier for you?

 

[Buyetyen]

Your claim is the bible should be the ultimate moral code because it is based on an omniscient deity’s vision. But if that omniscience didn’t seethings like modern medicine coming, is it really all that omniscient? And since it is it, how can it be that ultimate moral guide. I ran through this in my last post, was this time round easier for you?

I feel at this point it may be relevant to point out that when a person tells you about their god, they're telling you about themselves.

 

[Neuromancer]

That appears to be the word for adultery:

G3432 - moichos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G3432 - μοιχός moichós, moy-khos'; perhaps a primary word; a (male) paramour; figuratively, apostate:—adulterer.

www.blueletterbible.org

Fornication - porneia
Adultery - moichos

You are correct about μοιχεια, I confused the english terms.

However.

Πορνεια was not used for fornication and there was an important legal distinction between unmarried sex and prostitution per Solon's laws. Per the laws of Solon, and in formal speech, the term for fornication is Αταιρησις.


To use article 332 of Solon's laws as an example, if an Athenian were to commit fornication (Αν τις Αθηνιος εταιρηση), he cannot become part of the Nine Lords, (μη εξεστω αυτω των εννεα Αρχοντων γενεσθαι), become an ordained priest, (μηδ' ιερωσυνην ιερωσασθαι), become the people's advocate, (μητε συνδικησαι τω δημω) or be given any authority within or outside the city, be it granted or seized (μηδε αρχην αρχετω μηδεμιναν, μητε ενδημον, μητε υπεροριον, μητε κληρωτην μητε χειροτονητη) or dispatched as a war herald(μηδ' επικηρυκειαν αποστελλεσθω) or have his opinion held with any weight, (μηδε γνωμην λεγετω) or enter public temples (μηδ' εις τα δημοτελη ιερα εισιτω), or be given a wreath in public wreath celebrations (μηφ εν ταις κοιναις στεφανοφοριαις στεφανουσθω). Whoever is charged with fornication and acts against the law, (Εαν δε τις ταυτα ποιη, καταγνωσθεντος αυτου εταιρειν) shall be sentenced to death (θανατω ζημιουσθω)

One may call an εταιρα a πορνη, but that would be in casual speech, much like how one may call his cheating girlfriend a whore, despite the fact that she did not commit prostitution. Legally and formally, they are separate entities. I do not believe that Paul spoke casually when he wrote to the Corinthians.

Yeah, okay, all seven of my sources are wrong, and him and his one source is right. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Man, it's too bad that none of those scholars and professors who wrote all that material ever asked Neuromancer for his opinion. Would have saved us all a lot of grief.

It is not a matter of asking me my opinion, but of being factual with their translations, for they are inaccurate. I have linked a Greek dictionary with the word πορνεια and the words that use it as a root. All of them have citations as from whom the definitions come from. For example πορνειας' definiton comes from Dimosthenes. It is only your biblical scholars that have decided to make such a distinction and casually link one word with another to suit their purposes. In the Greek Orthodox reading of the passage, which stems from the original text, that part of Corinthians very clearly speaks about prostitution. It is the way it is taught in schools (where religious studies are still compulsory for the entirety of public school, from ages 6 to 18). But I also wouldn't mind being asked for my opinion, given I hold a degree in philology and have for my degree-sponsored internship spent a year researching biblical texts with the support of theologians. But anyway, I shall take a page off your book, and decide that this subject no longer interests me in terms of discussion, and use this as an excuse to depart it, as I am sure it will become cyclical as with all discussions you take part in. So I shall be withdrawing from this thread with this as my final post. Thank you for the discussion. Have fun going in circles with Palindrome.