(July 28, 2021 at 1:54 pm)Angrboda Wrote:(July 28, 2021 at 1:28 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote: Your assumptions are baseless, you conflate indentured servitude with slavery, where in the King James English, the word SLAVE only appears twice the bible, once in the old testament and once in the new testament, the word SERVANT is used IN ALL OTHER INSTANCES, which shows a clear distinction between the word servant and slave.
Hows is it that your apparently prodigious brain can't understand that?
I can understand that, as well as the possibility that the distinction you are arguing is nonsense or of limited applicability. Ultimately that doesn't matter. As Nudger has pointed out, both are things a moral god would prohibit if my argument holds, which it does. Try arguing the point instead of cheap shots and semantic quibbles. You've now conceded that even if indentured servitude was less problematic than slavery, it's still a problem.
*emphasis mine*
I've done no such thing, what I've maintained is that in the bible, people voluntarily entered into servitude, in the case of Jacob he did it in lieu of having a dowry. This was two grown adults entering into a contractual agreement, explain how YOU consider this to be problematic...
(July 28, 2021 at 1:54 pm)Angrboda Wrote: As to what word is used in the King James version of the bible, that matters little as the bible wasn't written in the king's English. I admit to being ignorant here, a limitation that even a prodigious brain can't overcome on the nonce. What words were used in the original, what practices did they indicate, and were they uniform or are you trying to sneak in exceptions as a general rule? We've already seen you try to reason from a limited set of particulars to a universal or general rule in an invalid manner, what's to say that you aren't doing so now?*emphasis mine*
Correct the bible wasn't written originally in English, it was translated into English, and for some reason the scholars chose to make a distinction between the words servant and slave.