Because if God thought owning a slave and beating him (or her) to within an inch of his (or her) life was really that bad, he wouldn't have told Moses to do it. As someone who serves God and not man, you'd agree, right? Shouldn't you be campaigning to repeal the 13th Amendment?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Why don't we focus more on these words: "As for the male and female slaves whom you may have...they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property." (Leviticus 25:44-46.) Just gotta respect the word, right bro?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The context: God is telling Moses what is & isn't permissible. The meaning: exactly what the words say. The Israelites may own slaves as inheritable property. But why don't you go ahead & tell us what you think they mean according to the GFV ("Garrett's Fake Version")
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Thanks for clarifying you haven't done your own translation, which is exactly what you suggested when you told us what was in - your words - "my version" of Leviticus 25:44-46. Are you going to tell us what you meant by "my version" of Leviticus 25:44-46?pic.twitter.com/xyyWVrOr0l
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
I'm only asking what version you were referring to. Should be easy, since you were supposedly referring to it about 24 hours ago.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.