Lack of knowledge of the Bible?

[Zzyzx]

.
Lack of knowledge of the Bible?

It is not uncommon in these debates for Apologists attempting to defend the Bible to be (or claim to be) unaware of significant Bible passages, and to be enlightened by Non- or Ex-Christians. Example:

I dont think Bible tells it is ok to beat slaves.

It does. And they can even beat their indentured servants too.

Luke 12:47-48 (OK to beat indentured servants)

Exodus 21:20-21 (Ok to beat slaves just as long as they don't die within a couple of days.

Is it rational for a person to attempt to defend the Bible when they demonstrate (or claim) to be unaware of significant, and often poignant, passages?

Does such ignorance or willful ignorance damage / destroy the credibility of the defense?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 60 by sorrento]


QUESTION: DOES THE LEVITICAL STATEMENT OF AN "EYE FOR AN EYE" CONTRADICT THE LAWS ON MONETARY COMPENSATION FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES?

LEVITICUS 24:19-20 (NIV)

Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.

ANSWER No, Leviticus can be seen as a legal principle while compensatory laws as the real life application of said principle. Lev. 24:19-20 is a constitutional principle that justice shall be rendered by way of punishment equal to the harm inflicted. There was no law that literally imposed taking an eye out if someone injured someone else's eye. Even today it is generally accepted that the expression "eye for eye" can apply to situations having nothing to do with eyes. The Wikipedia entry on this reads

"An eye for an eye" (Biblical Hebrew: - -- -")[a] or the law of retaliation (Latin: lex talionis)[1] is the principle that a person who has injured another person is to be penalized to a similar degree, and the person inflicting such punishment should be the injured party. In softer interpretations, it means the victim receives the [estimated] value of the injury in compensation.[2] The intent behind the principle was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss.[1]

So accepting Leviticus 24:19-20 as a judiciary principle, it's practical application can be seen in Exodus without contradiction.

EXODUS 21:18-20

"If men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he doesn't die, but is confined to bed; if he rises again and walks around with his staff, then he who struck him shall be cleared: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for his healing until he is thoroughly healed*.

* Outstanding in its justice, this law implied if the injured party remained permanently handicapped, the offender would pay damages and loss of income for the rest of his life.


As for slaves, the principle of Leviticus 24:19 found its application in automatic freedom rendered to compensate for permanent physical injury

EXODUS 21:26, 27

If a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth. - NWT.

JW





RELATED POSTS

Does the bible say slave owners were allowed to beat their slaves to death?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 027#764027

Was Jewsish Martial law barbaric?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 781#977781

Is it wrong for men to treat women as their "property"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 057#977057

Go to other posts related to...

SLAVERY, CHILD ABUSE and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[sorrento]

[Replying to post 61 by JehovahsWitness]

LEVITICUS 24:19-20 states quite clearly that the one who inflicts the injury must be injured in the same manner, they must suffer the same injury. You went for the "softer" interpretation. Is this another case of, "Oh, I know that's what it says, but that is not what it means"?

In Exodus 21:26,27 for inflicting the same injuries as described in Lev 24:19-20, the perpetrator is not required to be injured in the same manner with the same injuries, but instead is to set the slave free.
So which is it, suffer the same injuries as the slave, or simply set the slave free?
When your god was supposedly laying down laws on how to treat people why did he not simply say "You shouldn't be beating slaves because you shouldn't have slaves. Claiming ownership of another human being is totally repugnant and not something an all-loving and compassionate being like me will tolerate."

That wouldn't have been too difficult now, would it?

[1213]

and make questionable statements, such as women like rape, based on a book you have demonstrated a poor knowledge of.

Actually, it is the news articles that I showed here that indicate that women dont always seem to think rape or violence is bad. Bible doesnt say women like rape.

[1213]

The verses you quote in Lev and Exodus contradict one another. In Lev it states that an injury inflicted on someone shall be suffered by the person causing the injury.
In Exodus, it states that no punishment shall apply if the injuries are not permanent, so that is different from what it says in Lev.

Sorry, I dont see any contradiction in what the Bible tells.

Death as a result of injuries received is as permanent as it gets, yet the perpetrator can escape punishment according to Exodus if the slave lives for a few days. Whether the slave dies immediately after the beating or a few days later the result in both cases is permanent. Death.

The problem with this is, how would we know what is the actual reason for the death after few days. it is possible that it is not because of the beating and not because of the owner.

[Willum]

and make questionable statements, such as women like rape, based on a book you have demonstrated a poor knowledge of.

Actually, it is the news articles that I showed here that indicate that women dont always seem to think rape or violence is bad. Bible doesnt say women like rape.

Actually that isn't what the articles said, it is what you said. You had only read the headline, which was misleading, however in line with the message you wished to convey.

[sorrento]

[Replying to post 64 by 1213]

All you do is make excuses, very bad ones, for the bible verses that go to show they were written by men with a mindset suited to the rather barbaric time in which they lived. You can't even say that it is wrong to beat a slave. Instead, you say that a beating may not have been the cause of death. On reflection, I suppose you have to think that beating a slave to death is ok, after all, you believe your god was ok with it as long as the slave survived for a few days. Wouldn't do to question your god's idea of morality now, would it?

[1213]

...I suppose you have to think that beating a slave to death is ok, after all, you believe your god was ok...

By what the Bible tells, beating slaves is not ok. And I dont think beating anyone is ok. I am really sorry, if my writing is so bad that you dont have any clue what I say.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 67 by 1213]

Your writing is fine.
The problem is the Bible's writing is so barbaric.

[marco]

By what the Bible tells, beating slaves is not ok. And I dont think beating anyone is ok. I am really sorry, if my writing is so bad that you dont have any clue what I say.

You write well in a language that is not your first. Few English speakers could write as well in your native tongue.


There are many good sayings in the Bible but lots of bad advice. "Suffer not a witch to live!" Stone errant girls (this is still done today in some countries). Gay men were executed for centuries, following biblical condemnation. Humans are best when they take care of each other.


Add a speck of mud to a glass of pure water and the contents are entirely polluted.

Go well.

[JehovahsWitness]

...There are many good sayings in the Bible but lots of bad advice. "Suffer not a witch to live!"

Why do you think, given the context, it was "bad advice" to kill witches?

There are many good sayings in the Bible but lots of bad advice .... Gay men were executed for centuries, following biblical condemnation.

Why do you think, given the context, it was "bad advice" to execute gay men?

NOTE If you are refering to the Torah, it wasn't "advice" which would be optional, it was part of the national law code.

Please note : This is not an invitation to question my intelligence or insult me for any presumed lack of personal morals, just an honest question within the context of the discussion. I am not suggesting that you are or you will do the above only clarifying my request.