Is The Bible really redeemed by it's good parts?

[William]

I find the statement "The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts." to be an empty statement of no real value in regard to the truth.

What exactly gives 'the bible' this ability to redeem its good parts from its evil other than individuals assigning meaning to good and evil from their subjective platform?

Surely this is more simply a statement of bias than of truth.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 38 by PinSeeker]

And God probably dealt with them in some way, issuing some kind of judgment upon them.

How can we ever know?

They got their just reward, either in the short run or the long run. Everybody does: "...each will receive his own reward according to his own labor." 1 Corinthians 3:8.

[help3434]

@help:

"Speaking of superficial understanding you ignore how this freeing after six years only applies to adult male Hebrew indentured servants."

I didn't "ignore" anything; I just assumed there would be no question. But since you ask:

You described verse to as if it were the policy for all slaves. Remember when you said "Slaveowners are actually to help the slaves through their time of service and at the end of six years, they are to set them free "for nothing" and didn't specify that this freeing only applied to a specific subset of slaves? That is very questionable to say the least.

At that time (over 2000 years ago), what applied to the male head of every household applied to the entire household. So the freeing after six years applies to his entire household, which would cover his wife, children and all others in his household, including other relatives and even his own servants, both male and female.

Only if he had them before this servitude.

"The very next verses in the chapter explain that this freeing doesn't apply to daughters sold into slavery..."

Right, because the father sold her into slavery, therefore making her, in effect, her new master's daughter, and this new master would be responsible for her and therefore obligated to protect her -- the new master became her redeemer at that point. And the next verse after the one you're referring to, Exodus 21:8, says that if she displeases her new master (father/redeemer), then instead of doing anything to her or punishing her or even killing her, he is to allow her to be redeemed by (come under the protection of) another man. God was obviously very protective of women.

How "protective" allowing fathers to sell their own daughters to lifelong slavery. Even Saudi Arabia before the recent lift on the driving ban is not so "protective" of its women.

"...or to any wives and children the Hebrew servant has during his servitude."

Right, because the owner had given the male slave a wife, and because of this, they were considered to be the owner's wife and children, and therefore the owner was responsible for them and obligated to protect them. Again, God was very protective of women, and children, too.

So someone who a wife and children before his servitude can protect them after his servitude, but some one who had a wife during his servitude can't protect them afterwards? That is just bizarre. Children grow up to became adults, yet are still lifelong property of the master, so this rule has nothing to do with protecting children.

"And of course elsewhere in the Bible the slaves that come from foreign prisoners of war and their descendents were subject to lifelong chattel slavery."

LOL... "of course..." (shaking my head). No, it was not chattel slavery. I'd have to know where this "elsewhere" you're referring to is, but I feel pretty confident that the answer to what you're referring to here would be basically the same as above. Which is to say that prisoners of war were not really considered "prisoners of war," per se, they were then considered to be part of the owner's household. And he was responsible for them, as a father would be.

See? You have to get yourself out of your modern-day 21st century mindset to understand these things.

Now. Some slave owners, in their sin, probably failed to follow God's rules and made it a form of chattel slavery in certain instances. But that was obviously against God's wishes. And God probably dealt with them in some way, issuing some kind of judgment upon them.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 New International Version (NIV)
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

How "fatherly", forcing a city into slave labor and killing all the men if they resist. Slavery apologetics is disgusting and highly dishonest

Leviticus 25 NIV

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

These slaves are characterized as property, not family members. Notice the admonishment to not rule over fellow Israelites ruthlessly is used in contrast to how foreign slaves are allowed to be treated, implying they are allowed to rule over their non-Israelite slaves ruthlessly.

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by PinSeeker]

Ah I see. You made a mistake when using the word 'probably' when really you were better to use the word definitely.

'gods word' tells you so and admittedly it is an attractive thing to believe people will finally get their comeuppance. Nice to have it reinforced in a book eh?

Mind you, some of the punishments in that book don't appear to fit the crimes - talk about extreme! Some people like it that way no doubt. Perhaps that is why it is written so.

Then there is the things people are punished for which are questionable as well...but I shouldn't conflate Abrahamic Religious Historical Atrocity with the subject of afterlife justice.

I wonder what the punishment will be for calling the bible 'the word of god'?
*Puts finger on chin and looks up, thoughtfully*

Perhaps GOD will be redeemed by her good parts, all said and done. THAT would be justice! THAT would also provide a myriad of priceless expressions and more than a few laughs right there!

[PinSeeker]

@help:

"Speaking of superficial understanding you ignore how this freeing after six years only applies to adult male Hebrew indentured servants."

I didn't "ignore" anything; I just assumed there would be no question. But since you ask:

You described verse to as if it were the policy for all slaves. Remember when you said "Slaveowners are actually to help the slaves through their time of service and at the end of six years, they are to set them free "for nothing" and didn't specify that this freeing only applied to a specific subset of slaves? That is very questionable to say the least.

What "subset," help? I'm not following. What do you think I needed to "qualify?"

At that time (over 2000 years ago), what applied to the male head of every household applied to the entire household. So the freeing after six years applies to his entire household, which would cover his wife, children and all others in his household, including other relatives and even his own servants, both male and female.

Only if he had them before this servitude.

No, not necessarily. He could have them during his servitude -- if his master didn't "give him a wife." Again, you have to get out of your 21st century mindset.

"The very next verses in the chapter explain that this freeing doesn't apply to daughters sold into slavery..."

Right, because the father sold her into slavery, therefore making her, in effect, her new master's daughter, and this new master would be responsible for her and therefore obligated to protect her -- the new master became her redeemer at that point. And the next verse after the one you're referring to, Exodus 21:8, says that if she displeases her new master (father/redeemer), then instead of doing anything to her or punishing her or even killing her, he is to allow her to be redeemed by (come under the protection of) another man. God was obviously very protective of women.

How "protective" allowing fathers to sell their own daughters to lifelong slavery. Even Saudi Arabia before the recent lift on the driving ban is not so "protective" of its women.

Like what I said before about something similar in this discussion, help, God only set rules here because they (the Israelites) were doing it, not because he sanctioned it. And since they were doing it, He set rules to make sure the daughter was always cared for and protected.

"...or to any wives and children the Hebrew servant has during his servitude."

Right, because the owner had given the male slave a wife, and because of this, they were considered to be the owner's wife and children, and therefore the owner was responsible for them and obligated to protect them. Again, God was very protective of women, and children, too.

So someone who a wife and children before his servitude can protect them after his servitude, but some one who had a wife during his servitude can't protect them afterwards? That is just bizarre. Children grow up to became adults, yet are still lifelong property of the master, so this rule has nothing to do with protecting children.

He can protect them afterwords, if what he acquired during his servitude was of his own doing. Again, according to that verse in Exodus, if the master <b>gave the servant a wife</b>, then what he had by that wife was considered his master's. Yeah, I can understand how it's "bizarre" to the 21st century mind. We wouldn't even think of doing those things today. But that's how society was structured 2000+ years ago.

"And of course elsewhere in the Bible the slaves that come from foreign prisoners of war and their descendents were subject to lifelong chattel slavery."

LOL... "of course..." (shaking my head). No, it was not chattel slavery. I'd have to know where this "elsewhere" you're referring to is, but I feel pretty confident that the answer to what you're referring to here would be basically the same as above. Which is to say that prisoners of war were not really considered "prisoners of war," per se, they were then considered to be part of the owner's household. And he was responsible for them, as a father would be.

See? You have to get yourself out of your modern-day 21st century mindset to understand these things.

Now. Some slave owners, in their sin, probably failed to follow God's rules and made it a form of chattel slavery in certain instances. But that was obviously against God's wishes. And God probably dealt with them in some way, issuing some kind of judgment upon them.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 New International Version (NIV)
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

How "fatherly", forcing a city into slave labor and killing all the men if they resist. Slavery apologetics is disgusting and highly dishonest.

LOL! These are laws for warfare, help, not necessarily slavery. And the Israelites were to offer peace. If the people of the city refused, then it was legal to do to the city what was necessary to conquer it. War is not a good thing, is it?

Leviticus 25 NIV

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

These slaves are characterized as property, not family members. Notice the admonishment to not rule over fellow Israelites ruthlessly is used in contrast to how foreign slaves are allowed to be treated, implying they are allowed to rule over their non-Israelite slaves ruthlessly.

No, if the slaves are acquired, even though they are not ethnic Jews, they become part of the owner's household (on the smaller scale) and therefore part of the covenant community and are therefore considered "fellow Israelites" (on the larger scale), and the owners are not to rule over them ruthlessly. It's a simple misunderstanding on your part. And again, you can't apply 21st century "sensibility" to ancient Israel. You also can't liken it to 19th century American slavery; it was entirely different. It was, as I have said, to be redemptive in nature.

Peace, man!

[William]

[font=Courier New]Is The Bible really redeemed by it's good parts?[/font]

I don't think one can apply ancient Israeli "sensibility" to 21st century reality. Neither redeems the other anyway. Indeed, ignoring the ancient as something worth applying to the modern, has evident advantages.

But are these things worthy of ignoring, thus 'the bad parts'?

[font=Courier New]That type of question is why I made mention of this, in the OP[/font].

What exactly gives 'the bible' this ability to redeem its good parts from its evil other than individuals assigning meaning to good and evil from their subjective platform?

Surely this [The Bible really redeemed by it's good parts] is more simply a statement of bias than of truth.

[font=Courier New]Example:[/font]
Some people actually think there is something wrong with you if you still have a foreskin! No, really. Apparently the god they invented agrees with them on this too. It's there, in - you guessed it! - The BIBLE!!!

And since the bible also happens to coincidentally be the word of this god, then it must be true, right?

[help3434]

What "subset," help? I'm not following. What do you think I needed to "qualify?"

How are you not following? In post 13 of the thread you claimed that the policy of freeing after six years applied to "slaves" but that is misleading because this freeing only applied to male Hebrew bondservants, and not to other slaves.

[help3434]

Like what I said before about something similar in this discussion, help, God only set rules here because they (the Israelites) were doing it, not because he sanctioned it. And since they were doing it, He set rules to make sure the daughter was always cared for and protected.

What a weak excuse. The law of Moses gave the death penalty to picking up sticks on the Sabbath and idol worship, but it banning slavery would have been to much to ask?

He can protect them afterwords, if what he acquired during his servitude was of his own doing. Again, according to that verse in Exodus, if the master <b>gave the servant a wife</b>, then what he had by that wife was considered his master's. Yeah, I can understand how it's "bizarre" to the 21st century mind. We wouldn't even think of doing those things today. But that's how society was structured 2000+ years ago.

If the Israelites were God's chosen people, then it would be God's fault that their society was structured in such a reprehensible way.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 New International Version (NIV)
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

How "fatherly", forcing a city into slave labor and killing all the men if they resist. Slavery apologetics is disgusting and highly dishonest.

LOL! These are laws for warfare, help, not necessarily slavery. And the Israelites were to offer peace. If the people of the city refused, then it was legal to do to the city what was necessary to conquer it. War is not a good thing, is it?

Once again you are accurately characterizing a biblical passage. God is commanding Israel to be the attackers of these cities. They are commanded to kill the men if they resist, and then enslave the women and children. If they don't resist the men are forced into labor. It is slavery either way.

Leviticus 25 NIV

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

These slaves are characterized as property, not family members. Notice the admonishment to not rule over fellow Israelites ruthlessly is used in contrast to how foreign slaves are allowed to be treated, implying they are allowed to rule over their non-Israelite slaves ruthlessly.

No, if the slaves are acquired, even though they are not ethnic Jews, they become part of the owner's household (on the smaller scale) and therefore part of the covenant community and are therefore considered "fellow Israelites" (on the larger scale), and the owners are not to rule over them ruthlessly. It's a simple misunderstanding on your part. And again, you can't apply 21st century "sensibility" to ancient Israel. You also can't liken it to 19th century American slavery; it was entirely different. It was, as I have said, to be redemptive in nature.

Peace, man!

Where does it say anything about them being part of the "covenant community and therefore considered fellow Israelites", or that their bondage is "redemptive in nature"? You are making stuff up in order to justify the Bible.