Fundamentalists...defending the indefensible

[Elijah John]

How bout this one:

"Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property "

Is this verse from God or Moses?

Could it be only Moses imperfect understanding of the will of God, what HE thought God wanted?

And thus isn't this an obvious flaw in the Bible?

If not, and you STILL maintain that the Bible is infallible, how do you defend:

a) the Bible's condoning of slavery, considering other human beings to be "property"
b) the Bible permitting (if not condoning) the beating of slaves, as long as they don't "die right away"

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 9 by Hamsaka]

I agree. The Bible must be inerrant or it totally falls apart like a house of cards. So in this sense I agree with fundamentalists.

Where I disagree with them is on the idea that the Bible could be said to be inerrant.

So I accept their demand that the Bible must be inerrant if it is to be held up as the word of God. But I do not accept their demand that the Bible actually is inerrant.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

How are you able to discern which sentences in the Bible are from God and which aren't? Are you claiming a supernatural power? This needs to be resolved.

Why not consider that the verse does not condone beating but actually seeks to punish it.

Think about our laws - we have different punishments based upon the level of violence but does that mean our laws condone violence as well?

If you really want to be outraged with fundamentalists consider Christ and grace and how outrageous but necessary grace is.

[ttruscott]

...

There is no justification for this ad-hoc dismissal. Why would such a rule even be necessary rather than banning slavery? The Biblical "god" was concerned enough about minutiae like wearing clothing made from mixed fabrics, so why didn't he speak against slavery?

The English word slave is an interpretive world for the Hebrew word which also includes the interpretation servant. These laws give a great deal of support to the servant / slave not known in the rest of the world. Therefore it is a mitigation of the evils men were doing...

I contend that the laws against slavery / servitude were given to men by inspiration mostly to Christians as a social blessing. Now it seems men have taken to using HIS blessing against HIM because of what HE last wrote about it when HE was suggesting that the nations mollify and restrain the evil of the reprobate that filled the world.

ALL sin is allowed on earth to prove the evil nature of sinners.
The evil of slavery is allowed in the world to prove the evil nature of sinners.
Allowing evil on earth does not prove GOD has any evil intentions for this allowance and the context of evil on earth within HIS plan proves HIS allowance is righteous with the purpose of exposing (and punishing) the evil in sinner's natures so some will repent and be saved.

[Divine Insight]

If you really want to be outraged with fundamentalists consider Christ and grace and how outrageous but necessary grace is.

I would certainly agree with this. I too see the concept of grace as being outrageous.

[OnceConvinced]

..If he is a personified God who has a "will" then he should be able to communicate DIRECTLY..

Maybe our human minds are incapable of taking it on board-

Then that would show a weakness on God that he could not communicate to us directly in a way that we can take it on board.

Jesus said- "You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)

Excuses from a fallible human who was obviously not an effective teacher. An effective teacher can explain anything and have the student understand. If Jesus could not explain things in a way the listeners could understand then that is a flaw in his teaching ability.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

a) the Bible's condoning of slavery, considering other human beings to be "property"
b) the Bible permitting (if not condoning) the beating of slaves, as long as they don't "die right away"

These were the days of the Romans , slavery was the state of the law , many were war prisoners , indentured servants. This verse was to protect the slaves from murder, homicide. Slavery was made from man , not from God . The NT speaks against returning escaped slaves to their master.

I would not consider this "condoning" more than intervening.

The same as today , one fights over the cause of death , if it is days , months later, after the fact, it might not be related the same circumstances of that day.e.g

I hit you over the head , then you die a few days later of something not related to the hit on your head at all, is this my fault ? I believe this is where care is taken in this verse. This is not a free pass to beat a man.

Ephesians 6;9

Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Don't threaten them; remember, you both have the same Master in heaven, and he has no favorites.

The definition of slave in these days and times is not the same as the definition of a slave in the earlier years of America .

What you must understand is that you learn by the OT and live by the NT, that abhors slavery .

One must not discount either testament , but one must understand the world evolves , as does our understanding of what is right and what is wrong according to the gospel.

I believe evolvement more than a " dismissing" exists here, or that the bible is fallible here. We must look at the time and era this is placed in.

There surely is an evolvement from the OT to the NT .

So, the answer to you is to view this more of an intervening , than a condoning of slavery, not to mention we truly do not know the true definition of " slave", in these days as they did have a chance at recompense against their owner.

Job 31:13-14New International Version (NIV)

13 “If I have denied justice to any of my servants,
whether male or female,
when they had a grievance against me,
14 what will I do when God confronts me?
What will I answer when called to account?

God concerned himself with their justice. This is self evident in this verse , not a condoning , a defending and an intervention.

Can you see this now?


https://bible.org/article/some-initial- ... -testament

1. Slavery in the first century was quite different from slavery in early American history. For one thing, Roman slaves were either taken as the spoils of war or were such because they sold themselves into slavery (known as "bond-servant"). They were often well-educated (cf. Gal 3:24 in which the "tutor" or better "disciplinarian" or "guide" of the children was usually a slave). The normal word for "slave" in the New Testament is the term dou'lo", a term that in earlier centuries usually referred to one who sold himself into slavery; later on, it was used especially of those who became slaves as the spoils of war.

2. Although the masters had absolute rights over their slaves, they generally showed them respect, very unlike the South in the days of Lincoln. They often treated them with human dignity and, although they could beat them, such does not seem to be as regular a practice as it was in America. Slaves could marry, accumulate wealth, purchase their own freedom, run a business, etc. Cicero noted that a slave could usually be set free within seven years; in any case, under Roman law a slave would normally be set free by age 30. All this can be overstated, however. The revolt led by Spartacus in 73 BC caused Rome to treat slaves from the western regions more harshly (very similar to how black slaves were treated). Eastern slaves, however, enjoyed much greater freedom.

This backs up what I stated earlier , as far as the "definition " of a slave in different eras. The bible verses also backs this up that I have shown you .

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

How are you able to discern which sentences in the Bible are from God and which aren't? Are you claiming a supernatural power? This needs to be resolved.

Why not consider that the verse does not condone beating but actually seeks to punish it.

Think about our laws - we have different punishments based upon the level of violence but does that mean our laws condone violence as well?

If you really want to be outraged with fundamentalists consider Christ and grace and how outrageous but necessary grace is.

I'm not TOTALLY outraged with Fundamentalists. I commend their "old-fashioned" values, I commend their dedication to prayer and Bible study, and with many, I commend their good works.

I DO have a problem with their theological intolerance, their failure to recongize anyone but fellow Fundamentalists as their brothers and sisters.

And I DO have a problem with their glossing over blatantly outrageious passages like this one in question which clearly not only condones the enslavement of fellow human beings as "property" but even gives permission to beat them, as long as it takes them more than a day or two to die.

So in other words, the Bible is saying that it is OK to beat your slave half to death.

You OK with that? Is THAT our God speaking? Or is that the bias of Moses, who was a product of his savage time.

[Elijah John]

@ DI...

I do not find your arguments convincing on this matter either, we have both been down this road many times before.

But, I would like to make one correction here. I do not think Jesus ever condoned slavery, I think it was Paul you may be thinking of.

And to DI and others who hold the position that we must either consider the Bible infallible in order to consider it to be the Word of God, do you see a difference between God DICTATING the Bible and God INSPIRING the Bible?

If the former, then yes, it MUST be free of any error. If the later, it does not have to be, as the error can be attributed tp the human factor in the Divine-human partnership.

[Divine Insight]

@ DI...

I do not find your arguments convincing on this matter either, we have both been down this road many times before.

Yes, this is true. However, this is a public forum, and as Z often points out, responding to concepts on these forums isn't necessarily intended to convince the individual who originally posted the topic or question.

I post my thoughts for the sake of the many readers who read these forums.

I realize that you are not likely to change your views. You may not be convinced by my arguments, but others may find them to be compelling.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 9 by Hamsaka]

I agree. The Bible must be inerrant or it totally falls apart like a house of cards. So in this sense I agree with fundamentalists.

Where I disagree with them is on the idea that the Bible could be said to be inerrant.

So I accept their demand that the Bible must be inerrant if it is to be held up as the word of God. But I do not accept their demand that the Bible actually is inerrant.

Inerrancy is a philosophical position, not a position one could eventually arrive at with enough evidence in hand. You've heard of Sye Ten Bruggengate?. He's the poster child for presupppositionalist apologetics. If you haven't seen his debates on YouTube, you've added 10 years to your life span, thank your lucky stars

The bible is inerrant because Christendom itself depends on it. Therefore, it is. And, it is true because it must be, in order for God to be coherent, which God is, and must be cuz Christendom itself depends on it.