Bible verse by verse

[_LittleNipper]

Deuteronomy 15:1-23 All debts are to be canceled every 7 years among Israelites! Every creditor will write ‘Paid in full’ on any promissory note he holds against his fellow Israelite, for God has released everyone from his obligation --- not apply to foreigners. No one will suffer because of this, for the God will greatly bless their the land he is giving if they obey this command. The only prerequisite for his blessing is that they carefully heed all the commands of the Lord God given. Israelites shall lend money to many nations but will never need to borrow! They shall rule many nations, but they shall not be ruled over if they obey! But when Israel arrives in the land of promise. They must are not to shut their hearts or hand against the poor. They must lend them as much as they need. Beware! Don’t refuse a loan because the year of debt cancellation is close at hand! If they refuse to make the loan and the needy man cries out to the Lord, it will be counted a sin --- lend and don’t moan! The proof of God is that He will prosper Israel in everything when they do this! There will always be some among you who are needy; that is why this commandment is necessary. A Hebrew slave, whether a man or woman, must be free at the end of the sixth year owned. He is not to be send away empty-handed! Give him a large farewell present from the flock, olive press, and winepress. Share with him in proportion as the Lord God has blessed. This should remind them of being slaves in the land of Egypt If your Hebrew slave doesn’t want to leave—if he says he loves you and enjoys your pleasant home and gets along well with you— take an awl and pierce his ear into the door, and after that he shall be a slave forever. However, realize that for six years he has cost less than half the price of a hired hand! And the Lord God will prosper all you do because of a release. Set aside for God all the firstborn males from flocks and herds. Do not use the firstborn of herds to work the fields, and do not shear the firstborn of flocks of sheep and goats. Instead, Israelite families shall eat these animals before the Lord your God each year at his sanctuary. However, if this firstborn animal has any defect such as being lame or blind, or if anything else is wrong with it, they shall not sacrifice it. Instead, use it for food for the family at home. Anyone, even if ceremonially defiled at the time, may eat it, just as anyone may eat a gazelle or deer but never the blood; pour it out upon the ground like water.


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


1 `At the end of seven years thou dost make a release,

2 and this [is] the matter of the release: Every owner of a loan [is] to release his hand which he doth lift up against his neighbour, he doth not exact of his neighbour and of his brother, but hath proclaimed a release to Jehovah;

3 of the stranger thou mayest exact, and that which is thine with thy brother doth thy hand release;

4 only when there is no needy one with thee, for Jehovah doth greatly bless thee in the land which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee -- an inheritance to possess it.

5 `Only, if thou dost diligently hearken to the voice of Jehovah thy God, to observe to do all this command which I am commanding thee to-day,

6 for Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee as He hath spoken to thee; and thou hast lent [to] many nations, and thou hast not borrowed; and thou hast ruled over many nations, and over thee they do not rule.

7 `When there is with thee any needy one of one of thy brethren, in one of thy cities, in thy land which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee, thou dost not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand from thy needy brother;

8 for thou dost certainly open thy hand to him, and dost certainly lend him sufficient for his lack which he lacketh.

9 `Take heed to thee lest there be a word in thy heart -- worthless, saying, Near [is] the seventh year, the year of release; and thine eye is evil against thy needy brother, and thou dost not give to him, and he hath called concerning thee unto Jehovah, and it hath been in thee sin;

10 thou dost certainly give to him, and thy heart is not sad in thy giving to him, for because of this thing doth Jehovah thy God bless thee in all thy works, and in every putting forth of thy hand;

11 because the needy one doth not cease out of the land, therefore I am commanding thee, saying, Thou dost certainly open thy hand to thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy one, in thy land.

12 `When thy brother is sold to thee, a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, and he hath served thee six years -- then in the seventh year thou dost send him away free from thee.

13 And when thou dost send him away free from thee, thou dost not send him away empty;

14 thou dost certainly encircle him out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing-floor, and out of thy wine-vat; [of] that which Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee thou dost give to him,

15 and thou hast remembered that a servant thou hast been in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah thy God doth ransom thee; therefore I am commanding thee this thing to-day.

16 `And it hath been, when he saith unto thee, I go not out from thee -- because he hath loved thee, and thy house, because [it is] good for him with thee --

17 then thou hast taken the awl, and hast put [it] through his ear, and through the door, and he hath been to thee a servant age-during; and also to thy handmaid thou dost do so.

18 `It is not hard in thine eyes, in thy sending him away free from thee; for the double of the hire of an hireling he hath served thee six years, and Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee in all that thou dost.

19 `Every firstling that is born in thy herd and in thy flock -- the male thou dost sanctify to Jehovah thy God; thou dost not work with the firstling of thine ox, nor shear the firstling of thy flock;

20 before Jehovah thy God thou dost eat it year by year, in the place which Jehovah doth choose, thou and thy house.

21 `And when there is in it a blemish, lame, or blind, any evil blemish, thou dost not sacrifice it to Jehovah thy God;

22 within thy gates thou dost eat it, the unclean and the clean alike, as the roe, and as the hart.

23 Only, its blood thou dost not eat; on the earth thou dost pour it as water.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Hi, Nipper. I'm still waiting for you to prove A) that a god exists, and B) that it's the god of the Old Testament. The longer you procrastinate, the more it seems like you're completely unable to meet this very simple challenge.

[_subgenius]

Hi, Nipper. I'm still waiting for you to prove A) that a god exists, and B) that it's the god of the Old Testament. The longer you procrastinate, the more it seems like you're completely unable to meet this very simple challenge.

couple of items noticed here:

1. it would seem that you would be more honest if you specifically noted your intention which is not to have one "prove" God exists, but rather, "prove to you" that God exists.
2. Given that you have an obvious predisposition about God's existence, it seems rather futile to "prove" anything to you on that point, because even in the face of proof, you will undoubtedly claim "trickery", "exception", or some other such fabricated "disqualification".
3. As for "which" God?...see response previous.

Bottom line, it is not always the proposition that requires justification...in many instances the burden of proof is upon the opposition...that is to say, it is on you (equally) to prove that God does not exist.....really, it is quite a simple challenge - wouldn't you agree?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Hi, Nipper. I'm still waiting for you to prove A) that a god exists, and B) that it's the god of the Old Testament. The longer you procrastinate, the more it seems like you're completely unable to meet this very simple challenge.

couple of items noticed here:

1. it would seem that you would be more honest if you specifically noted your intention which is not to have one "prove" God exists, but rather, "prove to you" that God exists.
2. Given that you have an obvious predisposition about God's existence, it seems rather futile to "prove" anything to you on that point, because even in the face of proof, you will undoubtedly claim "trickery", "exception", or some other such fabricated "disqualification".
3. As for "which" God?...see response previous.

I'm perfectly happy to admit I operate under a "predisposition" regarding the existence of a god or gods. In point of fact I operate under two such predispositions:

Predisposition Number One:
I don't know whether or not a god or gods exist. Moreover, assuming a god or gods exist, I don't know why it would necessarily have to be the god of the Old Testament...or the god of the Qur'an, or the god whose existence is posited in the Hubbardian Basics. The reason why I cite these three gods (the Christian god, the Islamic god, and the supreme being posited by Scientology) is because they are mutually conflicting. In other words, if one exists, the others by necessity cannot exist.

Predisposition Number Two:
I will happily change my world view concerning the existence of a god or gods in the event that I come across clear, compelling evidence that is not open to multiple interpretations. It's wrong to assume (as bcspace and others do) that people like me who reject traditional notions of deity are not capable of changing our opinions in the light of clear, compelling evidence to the contrary. Given sufficient evidence, I will eagerly change my views and opinions accordingly. I think it's a lot of fun whenever I learn the world works in strange, new ways. Don't you?

Bottom line, it is not always the proposition that requires justification...in many instances the burden of proof is upon the opposition...that is to say, it is on you (equally) to prove that God does not exist.....really, it is quite a simple challenge - wouldn't you agree?

You're saying it's up to me to prove that the ancient war god of the tribal Hebrews isn't real???

Then what about the Qur'an? Is it up to me to prove that the god of the Qur'an isn't real, either?

And what about Scientology? Is it also up to me to prove the god of Scientology isn't real?

Am I therefore supposed to assume these three mutually-conflicting gods all simultaneously exist just because I can't prove they're not real?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way...

[Guest]

couple of items noticed here:

1. it would seem that you would be more honest if you specifically noted your intention which is not to have one "prove" God exists, but rather, "prove to you" that God exists.
2. Given that you have an obvious predisposition about God's existence, it seems rather futile to "prove" anything to you on that point, because even in the face of proof, you will undoubtedly claim "trickery", "exception", or some other such fabricated "disqualification".
3. As for "which" God?...see response previous.

I'm perfectly happy to admit I operate under a "predisposition" regarding the existence of a god or gods. In point of fact I operate under two such predispositions:

Predisposition Number One:
I don't know whether or not a god or gods exist. Moreover, assuming a god or gods exist, I don't know why it would necessarily have to be the god of the Old Testament...or the god of the Qur'an, or the god whose existence is posited in the Hubbardian Basics. The reason why I cite these three gods (the Christian god, the Islamic god, and the supreme being posited by Scientology) is because they are mutually conflicting. In other words, if one exists, the others by necessity cannot exist.

Predisposition Number Two:
I will happily change my world view concerning the existence of a god or gods in the event that I come across clear, compelling evidence that is not open to multiple interpretations. It's wrong to assume (as bcspace and others do) that people like me who reject traditional notions of deity are not capable of changing our opinions in the light of clear, compelling evidence to the contrary. Given sufficient evidence, I will eagerly change my views and opinions accordingly. I think it's a lot of fun whenever I learn the world works in strange, new ways. Don't you?

Bottom line, it is not always the proposition that requires justification...in many instances the burden of proof is upon the opposition...that is to say, it is on you (equally) to prove that God does not exist.....really, it is quite a simple challenge - wouldn't you agree?

You're saying it's up to me to prove that the ancient war god of the tribal Hebrews isn't real???

Then what about the Qur'an? Is it up to me to prove that the god of the Qur'an isn't real, either?

And what about Scientology? Is it also up to me to prove the god of Scientology isn't real?

Am I therefore supposed to assume these three mutually-conflicting gods all simultaneously exist just because I can't prove they're not real?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way...

You may wish to see this concerning the founder of Islam: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/history.htm
Scientology is founded on a very human author, please see: http://www.religionfacts.com/scientology/history.htm

[_Bazooka]

Bottom line, it is not always the proposition that requires justification...in many instances the burden of proof is upon the opposition...that is to say, it is on you (equally) to prove that God does not exist.....really, it is quite a simple challenge - wouldn't you agree?

You're saying it's up to me to prove that the ancient war god of the tribal Hebrews isn't real???

Then what about the Qur'an? Is it up to me to prove that the god of the Qur'an isn't real, either?

And what about Scientology? Is it also up to me to prove the god of Scientology isn't real?

Am I therefore supposed to assume these three mutually-conflicting gods all simultaneously exist just because I can't prove they're not real?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way...

I can't really prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, does that make him real too?
Subby, I refer you to Russell's teapot....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[_The Erotic Apologist]

You may wish to see this concerning the founder of Islam: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/history.htm
Scientology is founded on a very human author, please see: http://www.religionfacts.com/scientology/history.htm

There you go again, Nipper--still cherry picking.

In other words, you're choosing to ignore the fact that both Islamists and Scientologists have full-time apologists who focus on the questions raised in the links you provided, just like Christian apologists who focus on similar questions about Christianity.

Nipper, do you think it's fair to avail yourself of answers provided by Christian apologists while ignoring Islamist and Scientological apologists?

And would you now please answer the questions I posted earlier? To wit:

Please show me where you prove A) that there is a god, and B) that it's the god of the Old Testament as opposed to, say, the god of the Bhagavad Ghita?

[_LittleNipper]

You may wish to see this concerning the founder of Islam: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/history.htm
Scientology is founded on a very human author, please see: http://www.religionfacts.com/scientology/history.htm

There you go again, Nipper--still cherry picking.

In other words, you're choosing to ignore the fact that both Islamists and Scientologists have full-time apologists who focus on the questions raised in the links you provided, just like Christian apologists who focus on similar questions about Christianity.

Nipper, do you think it's fair to avail yourself of answers provided by Christian apologists while ignoring Islamist and Scientological apologists?

And would you now please answer the questions I posted earlier? To wit:

Please show me where you prove A) that there is a god, and B) that it's the god of the Old Testament as opposed to, say, the god of the Bhagavad Ghita?

What I am saying is that over thousands of years many individuals from not just a few different backgrounds, wrote a series of books that all substantiate each other. Islam cannot claim this, scientology does not, and in fact neither does the Book of Mormon (which depends on the supposed revelation and finding of one individual). The fact that you woke up today is proof of God. You seem to think that answered prayers, direction, influence in the lives of godly individuals counts as nothing. All one really needs to do is look at a Godly individual. And godly individuals are not perfect, but godly individuals do in the very least reflect God do not exalt themselves. I do not see Mohammad, Hitler, or Joseph Smith reflection God. They made a name for themselves. They gained a following, but in the end, it is all about what they DID, SAID, and THOUGHT. Godly people tend not to be noticed and/or often dwell on their own shortcomings. Where did Hitler tell anyone he made mistakes? Your question has been answered. You need to talk to God and ask Him for guidance. And when guidance comes, don't imagine it was of your own clever mind, but thank God. And you will be on the way to finding God.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

What I am saying is that over thousands of years many individuals from not just a few different backgrounds, wrote a series of books that all substantiate each other.

No--like many other collections of ancient literature the Bible is an uneven mixture of both consistency and contradiction.

Islam cannot claim this...

Wrong--like Christianity, Islam claims its sacred writings are 100% internally consistent, and it backs up this claim with an endless stream of Islamic apologetics. (There you go again, availing yourself of Christian apologetics, while purposely ignoring Islamist apologetics, i.e. cherry picking.)

...scientology does not...

Wrong--like Christianity, Scientology claims its sacred writings are 100% internally consistent, and it backs up this claim with an endless stream of Scientological apologetics. (There you go again, availing yourself of Christian apologetics, while purposely ignoring Hubbardian apologetics, i.e. cherry picking.)

...and in fact neither does the Book of Mormon...

Wrong--like Christianity, Mormonism claims its sacred writings are 100% internally consistent, and it backs up this claim with an endless stream of Mormon apologetics. (There you go again, availing yourself of Christian apologetics, while purposely ignoring LDS apologetics, i.e. cherry picking.)

The fact that you woke up today is proof of God.

Congratulations, you've proved that Thor, the god of thunder, is God because a thunderstorm happened to wake me up this morning.

You seem to think that answered prayers, direction, influence in the lives of godly individuals counts as nothing. All one really needs to do is look at a Godly individual. And godly individuals are not perfect, but godly individuals do in the very least reflect God do not exalt themselves.

On my mission in Taiwan, many Chinese people testified to me that Gwan Ying, the Taoist goddess of mercy, answered their prayers, so therefore Gwan Ying is god.

I do not see Mohammad, Hitler, or Joseph Smith reflection God.
They made a name for themselves. They gained a following, but in the end, it is all about what they DID, SAID, and THOUGHT.

Islamists see Mohammad as a reflection of Allah, therefore Allah is god.

Mormons see Joseph Smith as a reflection of god, therefore the Mormon Elohim is god.

Nazis saw Hitler as a reflection of "Hand of Providence", therefore the neo-pagan "Hand of Providence" of the Nazis is god.

Godly people tend not to be noticed and/or often dwell on their own shortcomings. Where did Hitler tell anyone he made mistakes?

Nipper, I've never seen you admit to any of your countless mistakes in this forum, so therefore you must not be doing the work of god. Repent, Nipper, before it's too late!

Your question has been answered.

Exactly how was it answered? Was it answered because I woke up this morning? Okay, so Thor is God.

You need to talk to God and ask Him for guidance. And when guidance comes, don't imagine it was of your own clever mind, but thank God. And you will be on the way to finding God.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt:

• I asked Yahweh for guidance, and received zilch.
• I asked Elohim for guidance and received zilch.
• I asked Allah for guisdence and received zilch.
• I asked Gwan Ying, the Taoist goddess of mercy for guidance and received zilch.
• I did not ask the Nazi neo-pagan "Hand of Providence" for guidance because Nazis are douchebags.

Nipper, when you asked Yahweh for guidance, what exactly happened? Did you hear a voice? Do you see a vision?

[_ludwigm]

The fact that you woke up today is proof of God.

The fact that we've eaten last sunday milánói sertésborda (= milanese pork reef) is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Even my TBM wife (right after three hours of procrustination ***) has eaten this:

.

Any of You (relation to Mormonism doesn't count...) would be our guest, we have acquaintanced with restaurants around.

____________________________
***
procrustination
It comes from Procrustes

In Greek mythology, Procrustes (Προκρούστης) or "the stretcher [who hammers out the metal]", also known as Prokoptas or Damastes (Δαμαστής) "subduer", was a rogue smith and bandit from Attica who physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed. In general, when something is Procrustean, different lengths or sizes or properties are fitted to an arbitrary standard.

(by the way nothing to do with procrastination, even during spelling championship - the high school passers - somebody would identify it as such.)