Why defend the Bible?

[unknown soldier]

Christian apologetics, understood as a defense of Christian beliefs, keeps busy defending the Bible. Why is it so important to defend the Bible?

I'm sure Christians have many reasons to defend the Bible which we can talk about, but here are four reasons we can begin to debate and discuss:

1. It is the "word of God" that communicates what he wants Christians to know.
2. It inspires and encourages them to remain steadfast in the faith.
3. It provides guidelines for living life wisely and morally.
4. It offers hope to them.

What exactly does the Bible need to be defended from? Again, we can discuss many reasons, but I'd like to start by discussing the following four reasons:

1. The Bible's pages are full of atrocities committed by God that no moral people can condone.
2. The Bible is full of internal inconsistencies that cannot be sensibly reconciled.
3. The Bible is often inconsistent with what we know from science and historical studies.
4. The Bible has failed to let Christians know what it really means, and that's why Christians have disagreed and even fought over it for centuries.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #43]

The bottom line here is, we have someone who wants to insist the Bible is immoral, while they certainly seem to demonstrate one who has very little knowledge of the Bible, because they seem to have reached their conclusions about the Bible by listening to what others have to say, as opposed to actually using their own mind.

Actually, if you carefully read what I wrote in the OP, I listed four common reasons to defend the Bible and four common criticisms of the Bible. For the purposes of this discussion I'm not saying that any of those reasons/criticisms are necessarily true or false or that I agree or disagree with any of them--only that they are used by at least some Christians or atheists as reasons to defend or criticize the Bible.

Now, you are very welcome to opine that some or all of them are not in use. If so, you may post your own reasons why Christians might defend the Bible or why critics might attack the Bible. If you think there are no reasons Christians or others defend the Bible, then you should say so. In any case, if you think there is at least one reason to defend the Bible, then please explain why you think it is important to do so.

Moreover, they have failed to demonstrate what morality would be, and goes on to insist that morality would be subjective, which would simply mean, the Bible can be immoral to some, and moral to others, and both would be correct. In other words, it can be both, at the same time.

I didn't intend to discuss morality per se on this thread. Again, this discussion is about why people think it's important to defend the Bible. If you want to discuss morality, then please discuss morality as it relates to why people may defend the Bible. For example, you might argue that Christians fear that if the Bible is not defended, then the morality in society will get worse.

So I hope I have cleared up any misunderstanding on your part. I should have explained all this earlier, but I assumed the OP was clear.

Yeah, this is probably the best move you can make, seeing as how the conversation is going for you thus far. However, it would have been you who brought morality into the conversation, but then we discover that you cannot even demonstrate what morality would be? Moreover, you criticize the Bible, while at the same time demonstrating that you have very little knowledge of the Bible.

[theophile]

All that you need is in there. So your point that the bible doesn't "help" people understand it is mistaken.

It's not difficult to explain why the Bible as we know it is so confusing. It's HUGE for one thing. It was written in dead languages that as you say are difficult to translate into modern languages, and it's full of bizarre imagery that has little to do with modern cultures.

None of that counts against. All that this telling me is that you don't want to put in the time or effort that's required. And to be clear, time and effort is required. But hey, if size is what concerns you, feel free to pick just one book. Go with Genesis. Or one of the gospels. There is enough in either of those for a lifetime of study and moral edification.

To your last points:

1. It can be a healthy intellectual exercise to study it to find hidden or "deep" meanings in it.
2. It's an important trove of literature from antiquity.

Sure. Those alone are reason enough to defend the bible. But again, I would adjust your first point. It is not just deeper meanings. It is the fact that it challenges our sensibilities. It makes us uncomfortable and pushes us to confront and wrestle with hard truths. It better equips us to be moral agents in the world. If we put the time into it, that is, and engage in the problems that it sets us.

But speaking of deeper meanings, if I add a third point, which I hinted at in an earlier post, it would be the underlying motive or spirit that the biblical authors tap into, and express through their writings. So let's call it the beauty of the literature, the treasure hidden within, and the challenge that it sets us in finding it.

[1213]

Most, if not all alleged contradictions or mistakes, exist only if Bible is interpreted so that it appears to have mistaken. If we read only what is said in the Bible, without own explanations, I dont know any mistake in it.

The interpretation is only correct if it does not show that there are mistakes or contradictions. If contradictions and mistakes are found, then the interpretation is is incorrect. That very much sounds like an application of confirmation bias.

If we have contradictory and non-contradictory interpretation, why should we choose the contradictory interpretation? Because atheism requires it?

Would you like if I would in your case invent stupid interpretations of what you say for to make you look stupid? Or would you like that I try to understand you the way that is best for you?

Anyway, I think interpretations are generally bad, because there is always possibility to say they are wrong. That is why I think Bible should be taken just as it is said and let it explain what it means, without own additions. I think one of the biggest problems in Christianity is that people make own interpretations and then own religion around their own doctrines rather than follow Jesus.

[1213]

...It's very common for apologists to accuse atheists of being dishonest. In other words, the apologists are implying that their evidence and their logic is so great, that only a dishonest person could possibly deny them. ....

I meant with atheistic lies, claims that can clearly be seen false. Latest that I have seen is the claim about sex slaves in the Bible. Bible doesnt even have the word and still atheists claim it is speaking of sex slaves. Every time atheist claims something about the Bible, I recommend to check what it actually says.

[unknown soldier]

Yeah, this is probably the best move you can make, seeing as how the conversation is going for you thus far.

I must admit that I ended up following you off on your tangent. We got off the subject, and I did not immediately "correct the course" by bringing us back to the topic of the discussion. A good debater knows how to spot red herrings, explain how they are irrelevant to the topic being debated, and go back to debating the actual topic. I will be more careful to do so in the future.

However, it would have been you who brought morality into the conversation, but then we discover that you cannot even demonstrate what morality would be?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in the OP I did mention that some people criticize the Bible as being full of atrocities committed by God that no moral people can condone. For the purposes of this debate it's not important to prove or disprove this critique or define what "moral" is. It's just necessary to consider that the Bible can be criticized that way and argue why people would criticize the Bible for being "immoral." Does the Bible need to be defended against such charges? Why or why not? These are examples of questions I would like answers to.

Moreover, you criticize the Bible, while at the same time demonstrating that you have very little knowledge of the Bible.

Again, it's not my purpose to criticize the Bible on this thread or prove what I know about the Bible. I just pointed out the fact that many people do criticize the Bible, and I want to debate and discuss if the Bible needs to be defended against what the critics say about it.

I'd be happy to debate the other issues you have raised, but we should do so on another thread dedicated to those issues.

[Difflugia]

I meant with atheistic lies, claims that can clearly be seen false. Latest that I have seen is the claim about sex slaves in the Bible.

This is baffling at best. Is the "lie" about sex slaves just that there are sex slaves? If that's what you mean, it's directly attested in the text. Genesis 16:1-2 reads:

Now Sarai, Abrams wife, bare him no children. She had a handmaid [, a female slave], an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. Sarai said to Abram, "Please behold that Yahweh has kept me from bearing. Please go into my handmaid. Maybe I shall obtain children by her. Abram listened to the voice of Sarai."

Sarai gave Hagar, her human property, to Abram to have sex with. That the goal was a child and presumably not sexual gratification is immaterial.

Bible doesnt even have the word and still atheists claim it is speaking of sex slaves.

What word? Sex slave? English doesn't have a word for "sex slave" either, but we have no problem discussing sexual slavery as your post itself adequately attests.

Every time atheist claims something about the Bible, I recommend to check what it actually says.

That's good advice. I also recommend that every time a Christian claims something about the Bible, it would be a good idea to check with an atheist to see if the Christian got it right.

[JehovahsWitness]

WAS HAGAR A "SEX SLAVE"?

Sex slavery is a term which implies a person is kept captive against their will for the sole purpose of providing sexual services to their master. It implies both an abuse if the person and a complete lack of any rights both for the slave and any children born. Is this a suitable description of Hagar?

GENESIS 16:13

Sarai took her Egyptian servant Hagar and gave her to her husband Abram as his wife.

Hagar was not a "sex slave" she was quite simply a second WIFE. The status of a secondary wife (or concubine) even one given as a slave is clarified by the fact that four of Jacob's sons would later be born to slaves given to him as concubines. All the sons received recognition as such and carried the name of their father Israel (Genesis 30:3-8).

Previously Hagar had evidently NOT been having sex with Abraham (otherwise Sarah's gesture would be redundant). She (Hagar) was in the service of Sarah; there is no indication Sarah used Hagar for sex on or that she prostituted her to anyone so describing Hagar as a "sex slave" is a gross misrepresentation of the narrative.

Further it is clear from the account that rather than being merely for Abrahams sexual gratification, Hagar was given to him so that he could have a legal heir as to inherit his wealth or continue his family line. There is little chance Hagar was unhappy with the arrangementnas for, if nothing else it represented a huge improvement in her status (compare Gen 16:4). Further she was in no way kept in the household against her will. Indeed when the rivalry between the two wives reached boiling point, Hagarv fled the home only to return of her own volition in obedience to divine* direction.

* Interestingly Paul later explained that the family drama represented a biblical pattern and likened Hagar to the Mosaic law which while inferior to the new covenant was equally of divine origin.

CONCLUSION While in no way equal to Sarah, Abrahams first wife, in either his affection or in authority, Hagar in no way could be described as a sex slave. The bible presents her as Abrahams secondary wife, and her child as his legal heir. She was neither restrained, prostituted, nor hired out for sex. She was a recognised member of Abrahams household and the mother of his firstborn.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS





RELATED POSTS

Biblical what was the status of a concubine?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 60#p780360
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 53#p780653

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ...., CHILD ABUSE/SEX SLAVERY

[Difflugia]

Sex slavery is a term which implies a person is kept captive against their will for the sole purpose of providing sexual services to their master.

So, the difference between a sex slave and regular slave is that regular slaves are forced to do additional things?

It implies both an abuse if the person and a complete lack of any rights both for the slave and any children born.

What point is this supposed to make? She was a slave exploited in sexual and reproductive capacities, but because her child was treated well, she can't be defined as a sex slave? As absurd as that line of reasoning is to start with, recall that Hagar and Ishmael fled into the desert to escape Sarai's capricious abuse while Abram stood by ("Your slave is in your hand. Do what is right in your own eyes."). That sounds like a pretty good fit for "an abuse of the person and a complete lack of any rights both for the slave and any children." Unless you think you can define that away. The literal deus ex machina saving Hagar and Ishmael thereby absolved Hagar and Sarai of abuse, perhaps?

Sarai took her Egyptian servant Hagar and gave her to her husband Abram as his wife.

Hagar was not a "sex slave" she was quite simply a second WIFE.

It is hard to tell the biblical difference between slaves and wives, but the presumably unintentional (and hilarious) irony is that it's not because slaves are treated so well. After writing my previous post, I was flipping through the book Sex Rewarded, Sex Punished: A Study of the Status "Female Slave" in Early Jewish Law by Diane Kriger:

There has been a gradual recognition in slave studies that the situation of female slaves must not automatically be assumed to correspond to that of male slaves. Female slaves, in other words, may be treated (legally, socially and politically) more like "females" than like "slaves," and this difference may result from the fact that their primary (if not exclusive) role is sexual. This is not to ignore that male slaves were also put to sexual use; the issue with female slaves, however, is whether their primary use was sexual, and particularly whether they were used to "breed" more slaves.

[...]

A review of the biblical evidence suggests, on the one hand, that a sexual role for the women was assumed. On the other hand, there is little indication that their fate would have inevitably have been either concubinage or the breeding of a new generation of slaves.

Truly, an example of damning with faint praise if there ever was one.

The status of a secondary wife (or concubine) even one given as a slave is clarified by the fact that four of Jacob's sons would later be born to slaves given to him as concubines. All the sons received recognition as such and carried the name of their father Israel (Genesis 30:3-8).

I get it. A slave woman whose sons are treated well can't be described as abused. Let's just say I disagree.

CONCLUSION While in no way equal to Sarah, Abrahams first wife, in either his affection or in authority, Hagar in no way could be described as a sex slave.

Well, maybe one way. She was, after all, a slave of one person given to another, specifically to be used for sex.

I'm sure she fled into the desert to die with her son because her life was just too idyllic.

[unknown soldier]

...It's very common for apologists to accuse atheists of being dishonest. In other words, the apologists are implying that their evidence and their logic is so great, that only a dishonest person could possibly deny them. ....

I meant with atheistic lies, claims that can clearly be seen false.

Isn't your calling atheists liars a bit harsh? If critics of the Bible are getting something wrong about it, then isn't it possible that it's an honest mistake?

Latest that I have seen is the claim about sex slaves in the Bible. Bible doesnt even have the word and still atheists claim it is speaking of sex slaves.

I agree that there is probably no term for "sex slave" in the Bible, but it definitely has sex and slavery in it. One of the tragedies of slavery is that the slave is often completely at the mercy of her or his master, and she or he dares not say no to anything including sexual advances from the master. It would be very naive to think that the slaves of the Jews were not subject to sexual abuse. Many of the Jews kept concubines which could easily have been treated as sex slaves.

Every time atheist claims something about the Bible, I recommend to check what it actually says.

I agree that you should check what anybody says about the Bible, but have an open mind to whatever point they are trying to make.

Anyway, you think that the Bible does need to be defended from those who would lie about it.

[brunumb]

If we have contradictory and non-contradictory interpretation, why should we choose the contradictory interpretation? Because atheism requires it?

That works both ways. The Christian begins with belief in the Bible so any contradiction must be automatically dismissed. But contradictions can be seen as evidence that the Bible is not all that it is trumped up to be. One would think that a being capable of creating and fine tuning an entire universe of incredible complexity would be able to do the same with something as important and simple as his autobiography.