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?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 16 by Willum]

What? The Supreme leader of Iran is both the ultimate political and religious leader of the country. The Guardian Council approves or vetos bills based on whether it is comparable with Sharia. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the closets thing to a literal theocracy that exists today.

[tam]

Peace to you,

As for the passage in question, many are also ignorant of the fact that some laws were given due to the hard hearts of the people. Such as the law on divorce - being able to send one's wife away with a certificate of divorce for any and every reason, even if you just got tired of her and don't want to support her anymore. Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matt 19:8. It was not true from the beginning; it was an allowance made for people who would not do better.

So was the original God stupid then?

He must have been not to have foreseen this problem and to need to have Moses change his original intentions.

How does that make sense?

Just because the people had allowances made (for a time), does not mean He did not foresee it. Nor does it mean that HE or HIS INTENTIONS changed.


Christ explained what is true from the beginning.

God also makes clear what He desires here:


"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Isaiah 58:6

Again, this represents nothing more than a very poorly written and flawed fabricated mythology, or a God who can't even understand how things might unfold. But that flies in the face of a God who is supposed to be able to foretell the future.

See above.

Of course everyone here is aware of those passage as well, right?

Absolutely. But those passages don't do anything to salvage this broken mythology.

Trying to argue that some God keeps changing his laws based on new events and behaviors that he didn't originally see coming is hardly a meaningful apologetic excuse for such an obviously broken mythology.

A - And who said He never saw them coming?


B - Permitting an allowance in the law for a people whose hearts are too hard to (yet) hear and accept what was true from the beginning, does not mean that His law changed. It simply speaks more of His forebearance with and for those people.




Peace again to you!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by help3434]

In English, maybe. Translating from Arabic gives a different opinion. Why pick on that one? That ONE? I listed several, and the theocratic Israel is in play... not them. Nice try though. Back to topic.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by tam]

I have to agree with DI. God is obviously short-sighted and stupid.
The Serpent and/or Satan make a fool out of him at each and every turn in the Bible.

The Apple. Where God loses eternity and the majority of souls to Satan, because he leaves Adan and Eve in the charge of a being who seduced 1/3 of the angels into perdition.
The Flood, where he doesn't see what happens to humanity for as long as it takes for fallen angels to seduce all of humanity but Noah and sons.
Then is forced by Satan in this capacity to commit terracide, and idiotically leave the world in the same state as it was, instead of starting over.
Ditto with Sodom and Gomorrah.
Of course God allowed the Hebrew to be captured by the Egyptians, in the first place... leading to the rise of a barbaric Moses.
On and on to your favorite character... Jesus. Who God allowed to be born a bastard, something no true Jew would accept. Or a demi-god, something also, no true Jew would accept. Only Greek-inspired Gentiles believe in any demi-gods like Heracles.
Then stomps around in ignominy then claiming hanging with prostitutes and criminals is PROFOUND, instead of abhorrent to Jews, and in general the upper class.
Then the Jews kill him for several counts of blasphemy. A complete surprise to Gentiles, but necessary for anyone who worshiped the God of the Pharisee.

Of course, being dead and coming back is much more effective if you stick around, instea of floating into the sky without witnesses.

So, no, not too bright.

[1213]

.
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?

The punishment is actually the same, if person hits a non-slave.

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.
Exodus 21:18-19

If you hit someone who is not working for you, you must pay for that person for the days he cant work. If you hit yourself or your worker, you lose the same amount of work that you or your servant could do. Should there be greater punishment for hitting someone, slave or non-slave?

Now, one could as well ask, is it rational for a person to attempt to attack against the Bible when they demonstrate (or claim) to be unaware of significant, and often poignant, passages? I believe we all know the obvious answer.

[OnceConvinced]

.
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?

The punishment is actually the same, if person hits a non-slave.

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.
Exodus 21:18-19

If you hit someone who is not working for you, you must pay for that person for the days he cant work. If you hit yourself or your worker, you lose the same amount of work that you or your servant could do. Should there be greater punishment for hitting someone, slave or non-slave?

Now, one could as well ask, is it rational for a person to attempt to attack against the Bible when they demonstrate (or claim) to be unaware of significant, and often poignant, passages? I believe we all know the obvious answer.

Those are completely seperate issues. And what you are ignoring is the whole "If they die after a couple of days there is no punishment" factpr

Verse 18 talks about a fatal blow vs a non-fatal blow. You get punished for the fatal blow. You don't get punished for the non-fatal blow. In other words it's ok to physically abuse another person as long as you don't kill them. They just have to pay for any lost time, that's all.

Verse 19 talks about a fatal blows. It doesn't talk about non-fatal blows. If they die within two days you get punished. If they die after 2 days you DON'T get punished.

Different standards depending on whether your a slave or an equal.

If the punishment was the same for both, it wouldn't be divided into two seperate verses would it?

I don't know why you can't see how henious vs 19 is. This is allowing you to get away with murder simply because the victim didn't die within 2 days. It's different because he's a slave. He's your property to do with what you want. Just don't waste a good slave.

By the way, I'd like to see you justification for Luke 12

[Zzyzx]

.

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

The punishment is actually the same, if person hits a non-slave.

Exactly. The Bible says it is okay to beat slaves and non-slaves.

Now, one could as well ask, is it rational for a person to attempt to attack against the Bible when they demonstrate (or claim) to be unaware of significant, and often poignant, passages?

Using knowledge of the Bible, does it okay the beating of slaves (and non-slaves) or does it not?

I believe we all know the obvious answer.

Apologists often attempt to avoid admitting the obvious answer " that the Bible okays beating of slaves (and non-slaves).

Such admission would indicate that the Bible is at least obsolete and/or morally reprehensible and/or not applicable to modern society.

[OnceConvinced]

.

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

The punishment is actually the same, if person hits a non-slave.

Exactly. The Bible says it is okay to beat slaves and non-slaves.

Yep. If we make them equals and we apply the same rules to both, this is exactly what it means. You can beat people physcially, just as long as you don't kill them or beat them so bad that they can't work.

Likewise you can also beat your children with a rod too.

So can we agree, 1213 that at the very least, the bible says it's ok to phsically abuse people whether they are slaves or not? Just as long as you don't kill them or injure them so badly that they can't work?

[OnceConvinced]

So can we agree, 1213 that at the very least, the bible says it's ok to phsically abuse people whether they are slaves or not? Just as long as you don't kill them or injure them so badly that they can't work?

A thought just occurred to me. What say you have a workmate you really can't stand. Beat the hell out of him and then fling him a few bucks. "Here you go. For the medical expenses. I'll cover for you while you're in the hospital."

Wouldn't that be cool?

[Tcg]

So can we agree, 1213 that at the very least, the bible says it's ok to phsically abuse people whether they are slaves or not? Just as long as you don't kill them or injure them so badly that they can't work?

Well, you can kill your own slave as long as you do so in a manner in which they suffer for two days before dying. Physical abuse of all people is okay, but more extreme versions of abuse are allowed against slaves. Slaves appear to be some lesser class of neighbor.


Tcg