Ok let me see if I got this straight- A daughter gets sold to a “husband”. If he doesn’t like her, he can’t sell her to someone else. He has to provide her with food, clothing etc. UNLESS he doesn’t provide for her, Then she goes “free” with nothing. So dad gets money for daughter, daughter gets raped, daughter gets kicked out with nothing. (Unless he wants to keep her as a servant, then he has to give her clothes and food- how nice of him.) This is god’s law. Am I correct?
@@deniseanderson4270 You’re really making it sound as bad as it is, that’s not fair!! PS I think he can sell her to another rapist, just not a foreign rapist.
I love how God operates on playground rules in verse 13 "don't let them catch you, just run away to the 'safe spot', cause if you're touching the right dirt you can live" 😭
@@JoelReadsBible On the contrary, savoring the confirmation bias. I knew that leaving religion was the right thing to do, even without reading these horrible books.
@@JoelReadsBible The next episode will be a legal drama between a master and former servant regarding legal emancipation over the loss of a tooth during a disciplining matter. The servant says the master loosed the tooth. The master says the servant self inflicted . . . while unconscious. "Tell the Tooth!"
@@JoelReadsBible Did the dentist present the true data or she have a reason to fabricate the records for a benefit from the servant's emancipation? Were they LoVeRs?
The Bible was written for you, but not to you. Context is everything, if you’re interested in understanding the text and a more serious textual criticism (there’s such a thing as hermeneutics that does affect reading/approaching any text) I’d suggest the closest thing to the proper context the internet has to offer in my opinion. Do a comparison of one of Joel’s/your readings Joel and Fr. Stephen DeYoung’s reading in his podcast “the whole counsel of God” available through AFR radio on any podcast app. This is a better answer to your maybe serious question in the opening few minutes of the show here. Again idk if you’re actually serious or if the disposition of this entire project is just mirthfully taking the piss so to speak. That is interesting though, why are you so attracted in giving so much energy and attention to something you find to be ridiculous? At any rate it is The Orthodox Church that is the custodian of the text, and that podcast I recommended would be my sincere and earnest suggestion for the closest thing the internet has to offer to answer your question asking for a thought out response. Because its perspective related my response is a wholistic one and not a point for point response I think it cuts to the chase in a way maybe you’re not asking for, but would be more interesting than the “this means _____ so you got this wrong”, no it’s more about disposition and where your attention is and what your assumptions are that colors the thing I’m criticizing about your show/reading. My suggestion should be easy to do tho. The podcast I recommended is usually about as long as yours so it would be a good comparison and asking you to undergo (voluntarily if you’re willing) what we voluntarily undergo listening to your content. God be with you. I’d love to see a rebuttal to it as well! It’s good for one to see how others do what they do.
@@ronwood788 Does the podcast speak to this chapter or these laws? Or is it just an effort to excuse the bad stuff in the book in light of Jesus? I can totally accept these laws as a flawed people’s attempt at a society. Once you add God, you’ve lost me. And I put so much energy into it because it’s what I know. I was indoctrinated into this religion and I believe it to be false, so I’d like to explore the text and see if it seems at all divine.
Someone did not read or understand my last comment, which was meant to serve as a paradigm through which to understand all of ancient Near Eastern law. Your argument that these videos are aimed at fundementalists falls apart, since you take a fundementalistic reading of the text, and use it to attack the entirety of the Christian faith, not just a specific position within that faith. Sometimes it almost feels to me like you're unaware of the fact that fundementalism is on the most part a modern western position, and not the position of Christianity throughout most of history, or even today throughout most of the world. All of the comments I left so far are fully consistent with the Christian faith. In other words, you knock down a piece of low hanging fruit from the tree, and use that to attack and insult the whole tree, while not even being aware of the high hanging fruit.
@@StudiesOfTheAncientNearEast You left textbook length cultural explanations of what an ancient people likely believed, how they understood the world (incorrectly) and the evolution of this religion. Although interesting, that doesn’t validate anything as true. I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation as to why these people wrote laws condoning slavery and the trafficking of women… but we just agree that these are pretty diabolical for a timeless God to prescribe. This chapter easily debunks that God is not good, loving it just… he’s manmade. You can say it’s low hanging fruit… I’m just reading the text.
It's true that the interpretation of Joel's fundamentalist take on the Bible is not a blanket statement for all of Christianity, but I have a strong feeling that the lack of specifically identifying this denomination exclusively there's more to reveal that will neutralize all belief in the Nicene Christian faith entirely. tl;dr This book can destroy Christian faith if you actually read the whole thing.
@@JoelReadsBible and lest we forget 10 percent of the Ten Commandments forbid killing. The ancient scribes must have forgotten to add the Hebrew character for an asterisk, because the rest of Hebrew law given afterward goes by "Don't kill unless _______________."
Laughing….’run away’ part. And the bull murder part. Watched Reverend Ed Trevors today, (Why does God change?) and he has an interesting take on the weird stuff in the Bible. If I wanted to start believing,, it would have to be similar to what he says, but not really seeing that in my future. Just still really enjoying your readings. And sorry, but I’m worth way more than thirty shekels. Ha.
@@victoriafuller4148 You’re priceless to me!! 🧡🧡 Maybe I’ll check Ed out, but I find most apologetics relating to this stuff fall flat. These are just bad ideas by a timeless all good God 😅
Here are the passages where YAHWEH commands that little babies must be chopped up with swords - which were the weapons used by the ancient Israelites when they went to war. Numbers 31 v 17 1 Samuel 15 v 2 Joshua 6 v 21 Joshua 10 v 28, 30 Deutoronomy 2 v 34 Evangelicals always claim that the YAHWEH commanded that the babies must be chopped up with swords as a punishment for their parents committing sins. Their parents were from surrounding nations that were NOT followers of YAHWEH. One of the claims is that the babies would have been sacrificed on satanic altars by their parents. So chopping the little babies up with swords was actually irrelevant as the little babies went straight to heaven anyway. Remember that Jesus is YAHWEH according to the Evangelicals. So it was actually Jesus who commanded that the little babies must be chopped up with swords. Well Jesus must be schizophrenic because in the New Testament he says suffer the little babies to come unto me. YAHWEH and his alter ego Jesus is definitely a schizophrenic war God.
@@JoelReadsBible Actually i have had street debates with the Evangelicals and they state that we are NOT allowed to question YAHWEH because YAHWEH is perfect in everything he does. We are simple clay vessels made by the master potter YAHWEH. And the master potter is authorised to create and destroy as he sees fit. Isaiah 45 v 7 "I the Lord God create good and evil" I am NOT a follower of YAHWEH but i am just giving you the Evangelicals explanation for the atrocities commited by YAHWEH.
It's sad how many apologists read passages like these and never think about the perspective of the women.
@@BeccaYoley It’s so confusing to me that this stuff is somehow accepted! 😳
Ok let me see if I got this straight-
A daughter gets sold to a “husband”.
If he doesn’t like her, he can’t sell her to someone else.
He has to provide her with food, clothing etc.
UNLESS he doesn’t provide for her,
Then she goes “free” with nothing.
So dad gets money for daughter, daughter gets raped, daughter gets kicked out with nothing. (Unless he wants to keep her as a servant, then he has to give her clothes and food- how nice of him.)
This is god’s law. Am I correct?
@@deniseanderson4270 You’re really making it sound as bad as it is, that’s not fair!!
PS
I think he can sell her to another rapist, just not a foreign rapist.
@@JoelReadsBible This is actually as good as I could make it sound. 🤦🏼♀️
@@deniseanderson4270 😳
The room you’re in is so beautiful with all the natural light and beautiful trees… ohh and this video was pretty good too I guess
@@Skitsandbits_ 😂😂 next one is gonna be a white wall do you can focus on the content 🙄😜
@@Skitsandbits_ I’m always looking at the room behind joel 🤣
This whole chapter would've been a lot shorter if verse 2 said, "Don't own people."
@@CutTiesWithYourCaptor And that might’ve moved the needle historically too 😳
I love how God operates on playground rules in verse 13 "don't let them catch you, just run away to the 'safe spot', cause if you're touching the right dirt you can live" 😭
😂😂 God has always been juvenile!
Chilling... horrifying...revolting... thank you
@@An-Islander I’m happy to ruin your day! You’re welcome 😅
@@JoelReadsBible On the contrary, savoring the confirmation bias. I knew that leaving religion was the right thing to do, even without reading these horrible books.
Glad you read the bible to me. My favourite personal storyteller...
@@PierreVerzele I’m here for you!
I want that Bible story!! "Laz: Hebrew Investigator at Law - Episode 01.01; The Plague of Bulls."
@@lionspawfilmandphoto alt title: What’s the story, morning goring?!
@@JoelReadsBible The next episode will be a legal drama between a master and former servant regarding legal emancipation over the loss of a tooth during a disciplining matter. The servant says the master loosed the tooth. The master says the servant self inflicted . . . while unconscious. "Tell the Tooth!"
@@lionspawfilmandphoto 😂😂
I have a report here for the slave’s dentist saying he needed a root canal! The tooth wasn’t long for this world!
@@JoelReadsBible Did the dentist present the true data or she have a reason to fabricate the records for a benefit from the servant's emancipation? Were they LoVeRs?
@@lionspawfilmandphoto This episode is really writing itself 😜
The Bible was written for you, but not to you. Context is everything, if you’re interested in understanding the text and a more serious textual criticism (there’s such a thing as hermeneutics that does affect reading/approaching any text) I’d suggest the closest thing to the proper context the internet has to offer in my opinion. Do a comparison of one of Joel’s/your readings Joel and Fr. Stephen DeYoung’s reading in his podcast “the whole counsel of God” available through AFR radio on any podcast app. This is a better answer to your maybe serious question in the opening few minutes of the show here. Again idk if you’re actually serious or if the disposition of this entire project is just mirthfully taking the piss so to speak. That is interesting though, why are you so attracted in giving so much energy and attention to something you find to be ridiculous? At any rate it is The Orthodox Church that is the custodian of the text, and that podcast I recommended would be my sincere and earnest suggestion for the closest thing the internet has to offer to answer your question asking for a thought out response. Because its perspective related my response is a wholistic one and not a point for point response I think it cuts to the chase in a way maybe you’re not asking for, but would be more interesting than the “this means _____ so you got this wrong”, no it’s more about disposition and where your attention is and what your assumptions are that colors the thing I’m criticizing about your show/reading. My suggestion should be easy to do tho. The podcast I recommended is usually about as long as yours so it would be a good comparison and asking you to undergo (voluntarily if you’re willing) what we voluntarily undergo listening to your content. God be with you.
I’d love to see a rebuttal to it as well! It’s good for one to see how others do what they do.
@@ronwood788 Does the podcast speak to this chapter or these laws? Or is it just an effort to excuse the bad stuff in the book in light of Jesus? I can totally accept these laws as a flawed people’s attempt at a society. Once you add God, you’ve lost me.
And I put so much energy into it because it’s what I know. I was indoctrinated into this religion and I believe it to be false, so I’d like to explore the text and see if it seems at all divine.
There is no god.
@@alschneider5420 nailed it again!
@@JoelReadsBible Thank you for telling me that.
Someone did not read or understand my last comment, which was meant to serve as a paradigm through which to understand all of ancient Near Eastern law. Your argument that these videos are aimed at fundementalists falls apart, since you take a fundementalistic reading of the text, and use it to attack the entirety of the Christian faith, not just a specific position within that faith. Sometimes it almost feels to me like you're unaware of the fact that fundementalism is on the most part a modern western position, and not the position of Christianity throughout most of history, or even today throughout most of the world. All of the comments I left so far are fully consistent with the Christian faith. In other words, you knock down a piece of low hanging fruit from the tree, and use that to attack and insult the whole tree, while not even being aware of the high hanging fruit.
@@StudiesOfTheAncientNearEast You left textbook length cultural explanations of what an ancient people likely believed, how they understood the world (incorrectly) and the evolution of this religion. Although interesting, that doesn’t validate anything as true.
I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation as to why these people wrote laws condoning slavery and the trafficking of women… but we just agree that these are pretty diabolical for a timeless God to prescribe. This chapter easily debunks that God is not good, loving it just… he’s manmade.
You can say it’s low hanging fruit… I’m just reading the text.
It's true that the interpretation of Joel's fundamentalist take on the Bible is not a blanket statement for all of Christianity, but I have a strong feeling that the lack of specifically identifying this denomination exclusively there's more to reveal that will neutralize all belief in the Nicene Christian faith entirely. tl;dr This book can destroy Christian faith if you actually read the whole thing.
@@JoelReadsBible and lest we forget 10 percent of the Ten Commandments forbid killing. The ancient scribes must have forgotten to add the Hebrew character for an asterisk, because the rest of Hebrew law given afterward goes by "Don't kill unless _______________."
Laughing….’run away’ part. And the bull murder part. Watched Reverend Ed Trevors today, (Why does God change?) and he has an interesting take on the weird stuff in the Bible. If I wanted to start believing,, it would have to be similar to what he says, but not really seeing that in my future. Just still really enjoying your readings. And sorry, but I’m worth way more than thirty shekels. Ha.
@@victoriafuller4148 You’re priceless to me!! 🧡🧡
Maybe I’ll check Ed out, but I find most apologetics relating to this stuff fall flat. These are just bad ideas by a timeless all good God 😅
Here are the passages where YAHWEH commands that little babies must be chopped up with swords - which were the weapons used by the ancient Israelites when they went to war.
Numbers 31 v 17
1 Samuel 15 v 2
Joshua 6 v 21
Joshua 10 v 28, 30
Deutoronomy 2 v 34
Evangelicals always claim that the YAHWEH commanded that the babies must be chopped up with swords as a punishment for their parents committing sins.
Their parents were from surrounding nations that were NOT followers of YAHWEH.
One of the claims is that the babies would have been sacrificed on satanic altars by their parents.
So chopping the little babies up with swords was actually irrelevant as the little babies went straight to heaven anyway.
Remember that Jesus is YAHWEH according to the Evangelicals.
So it was actually Jesus who commanded that the little babies must be chopped up with swords.
Well Jesus must be schizophrenic because in the New Testament he says suffer the little babies to come unto me.
YAHWEH and his alter ego Jesus is definitely a schizophrenic war God.
@@shaunigothictv1003 You’re preaching to the choir! It’s impossible to buy this stuff 😳
@@JoelReadsBible Actually i have had street debates with the Evangelicals and they state that we are NOT allowed to question YAHWEH because YAHWEH is perfect in everything he does.
We are simple clay vessels made by the master potter YAHWEH.
And the master potter is authorised to create and destroy as he sees fit.
Isaiah 45 v 7
"I the Lord God create good and evil"
I am NOT a follower of YAHWEH but i am just giving you the Evangelicals explanation for the atrocities commited by YAHWEH.
@@shaunigothictv1003 Oh, I know these sad arguments very well, my friend! 😅🧡
@@JoelReadsBible OK peace and blessings from the U.K.
@@JoelReadsBible ❤️❤️❤️