Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

waynepii wrote:It seems to me to be saying "hitting your slave is OK so long as you don't kill or seriously injure him or her" (you get punished only if he/she survives and is able to "get up" in a day or two.)

I don't think so... The word is "if" not "you should." Like if you hit someone, then the consequences are this.." Also if you look up a verse it appears to be in the context of quarreling or fighting. Also reiterated in the next passage Exodus 21:22.

Exodus 21:18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist..."

Exodus 21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman..."

Now if the Bible said " Masters can beat their slaves until the brink of death, and if he lives, then the master will go unpunished," then you might have a point. But it doesn't say that at all....

I'm not claiming the verse is saying one should beat their slaves, I am saying that if one does beat their slaves they only are to be punished if they seriously injure or kill the slave. That is tantamount to condoning beating slaves (and pretty severely at that - punishment is only warranted if the slave is not able to get up in a day or two). It sure sounds to me as if the message is "Masters can beat their slaves until the brink of death, and if he lives, then the master will go unpunished,"

Not "Masters should beat their slaves until the brink of death, ... ", but "Masters can beat their slaves until the brink of death, ... ", and further if the slave lives, the master will go unpunished. Said a bit differently "If a Master beats his slaves until the brink of death, and if the slave lives, then the master will go unpunished".

Way,

OK,
So what is your point?

jlay wrote:Way,

OK,
So what is your point?

I was just explaining my disagreement with this post ...

Re: Slavery in the Bible

Postby Gman on Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:24 am
I want to go back to this passage...

Exodus 21:20-21

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

First of all I would like to make this crystal clear... Many say that the Bible says that you can hit your slave if they disobey. This is INCORRECT. Exodus 21:20 says "IF" a man beats his male or female slave with a rod. The word is "IF". Nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that you should beat up a slave... Nowhere does the Bible endorse hitting a slave.

The Bible seems to condone hitting a slave as long as you don't injure him/her severely or cause death, as it specifically states the master shall not be punished. Given the general harshness of the punishments prescribed for various offenses in Leviticus and elsewhere, one might say this could be a fairly ringing endorsement of slavery. My own opinion is that in the culture of the day, slavery was prevalent and the verses were prescribing a more human treatment of slaves.

Way,

I can understand how you can come away with that opinion. I admit, in the context of today it seems harsh. There are many things in the OT that have disturbed me. It is really hard for us to grasp the realities of those cultures. Now, if we lived in Afghanistan we might have a little different outlook.

Nowhere does it say one should abuse their servant or slave. Further the law makes other statements and protections regarding slaves. If they run away they must be set free. Why would they run away? Abuse or mistreatment.

The whole counsel my friend.

fairly ringing endorsement of slavery.

Well, just be careful not to mix the culture of ancient slavery with the atrocities of slavery in the U.S. This is often what people want to do. The bible deals with reality. It is not a book that white washes over the ugly stuff. If you take the whole counsel you will be hard pressed to come away with an endorsement of slavery. All you can say is that in this one verse, slaves have less protection under the law. There is not equality. No one can argue that point.

jlay wrote:Way,

I can understand how you can come away with that opinion. I admit, in the context of today it seems harsh. There are many things in the OT that have disturbed me. It is really hard for us to grasp the realities of those cultures. Now, if we lived in Afghanistan we might have a little different outlook.

But the other side of the coin is that The Bible does address the culture "then" and some care must be taken in applying it to today's culture. The real problem IMO is that The Bible needs interpretation to adapt to the present - and such interpretation must be done by people.

Nowhere does it say one should abuse their servant or slave. Further the law makes other statements and protections regarding slaves. If they run away they must be set free. Why would they run away? Abuse or mistreatment.

Agreed

The whole counsel my friend.

fairly ringing endorsement of slavery.

Well, just be careful not to mix the culture of ancient slavery with the atrocities of slavery in the U.S. This is often what people want to do. The bible deals with reality. It is not a book that white washes over the ugly stuff. If you take the whole counsel you will be hard pressed to come away with an endorsement of slavery. All you can say is that in this one verse, slaves have less protection under the law. There is not equality. No one can argue that point.

No, but many people did - The Bible was often quoted as justifying slavery before and during the American Civil War and justifying segregation for the 100 odd years thereafter.

waynepii wrote:I'm not claiming the verse is saying one should beat their slaves, I am saying that if one does beat their slaves they only are to be punished if they seriously injure or kill the slave. That is tantamount to condoning beating slaves (and pretty severely at that - punishment is only warranted if the slave is not able to get up in a day or two). It sure sounds to me as if the message is "Masters can beat their slaves until the brink of death, and if he lives, then the master will go unpunished,"

We already agreed that the Bible says not to beat up your slave.

waynepii wrote:Not "Masters should beat their slaves until the brink of death, ... ", but "Masters can beat their slaves until the brink of death, ... ", and further if the slave lives, the master will go unpunished. Said a bit differently "If a Master beats his slaves until the brink of death, and if the slave lives, then the master will go unpunished".

No.. The question is "IF" a master hits a slave. Not that masters should hit a slave. That is a huge difference... Again, I would stress that the verse is in the context of a fight, see Exodus 21:18 and 22.

Gman wrote:

waynepii wrote:I'm not claiming the verse is saying one should beat their slaves, I am saying that if one does beat their slaves they only are to be punished if they seriously injure or kill the slave. That is tantamount to condoning beating slaves (and pretty severely at that - punishment is only warranted if the slave is not able to get up in a day or two). It sure sounds to me as if the message is "Masters can beat their slaves until the brink of death, and if he lives, then the master will go unpunished,"

We already agreed that the Bible says not to beat up your slave.

No - I agreed The Bible does not say "a master should beat his slaves. I claim that it does condone beating your own slave so long as they do not seriously injure or kill the slave (ie "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." - I do not see how that says anything other than "it's OK to beat your slave so long as you don't kill or seriously injure the slave").

waynepii wrote:Not "Masters should beat their slaves until the brink of death, ... ", but "Masters can beat their slaves until the brink of death, ... ", and further if the slave lives, the master will go unpunished. Said a bit differently "If a Master beats his slaves until the brink of death, and if the slave lives, then the master will go unpunished".

No.. The question is "IF" a master hits a slave. Not that masters should hit a slave. That is a huge difference...

Again, I have never claimed The Bible says a master should hit a slave.

Again, I would stress that the verse is in the context of a fight, see Exodus 21:18 and 22.

So the master simply claims any occurrence of slave-beating was the result of a fight.

Seriously, 21:12-35 deals with situations involving personal injuries. If 21:20-21 was intended to be specific to a fight, why the change in terminology? (21:18 and 21:22 use "hit" as opposed to "beat" as in 21:20)? Further, 21:18 specifically states it applies to "a quarrel" and 21:22 explicitly states it applies to men who are "fighting" - but "quarrel" and "fighting" are conspicuous by their absence from 21:20-21. Further still, why are injuries to the master caused by the slave not dealt with if 21:20 really was intended to apply to an argument between a master and his slave? Do you really think it was acceptable for a slave to defy, quarrel with, and/or fight with his master? If so, is it your opinion or do you have a cite to justify it?

The real problem IMO is that The Bible needs interpretation to adapt to the present - and such interpretation must be done by people.

How is this interpretive? This is civil law on how Israel was to deal with the issue of slavery in the confines of its theocracy, in a culture where slavery was reality. It is not as if someone would say, "my interpretation is that Israel didn't have slaves, and this is a metaphor."
your posts show that you are the one making the most interpretive assumptions, by far. If human interpretation is unreliable, and you are in fact making interpretations, then how can you trust you are right?

It is obvious that you are making interpretations to satisfy your own misgivings about God's Word. And then using this as a stepping stone to say the bible is unreliable. Now that is a strawman.

The Bible was often quoted as justifying slavery before and during the American Civil War and justifying segregation for the 100 odd years thereafter.

jlay wrote: Really? Can you provide those quotes from the bible that would jusfity slave trading in the era of the civil war? Sure, men who condoned the African American slave trade certainly misused faith to promote slavery. But does the bible line up with their wants? Can you read the bible on its face value, and justify the slave trade of the 1700s and 1800s. Can actually find these proponents quoting the bible.

For example:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America [15] Jefferson Davis.
Where did he quote the bible? He didn't. His statement is interpretive, but doesn't actually involve interpreting scripture at all. It is a blanket statement that uses vague generalities to condone something, without examining the doctrine itself.

jlay wrote:

The real problem IMO is that The Bible needs interpretation to adapt to the present - and such interpretation must be done by people.

How is this interpretive? This is civil law on how Israel was to deal with the issue of slavery in the confines of its theocracy, in a culture where slavery was reality. It is not as if someone would say, "my interpretation is that Israel didn't have slaves, and this is a metaphor."
your posts show that you are the one making the most interpretive assumptions, by far. If human interpretation is unreliable, and you are in fact making interpretations, then how can you trust you are right?

It is obvious that you are making interpretations to satisfy your own misgivings about God's Word. And then using this as a stepping stone to say the bible is unreliable. Now that is a strawman.

The Bible was often quoted as justifying slavery before and during the American Civil War and justifying segregation for the 100 odd years thereafter.

jlay wrote: Really? Can you provide those quotes from the bible that would jusfity slave trading in the era of the civil war? Sure, men who condoned the African American slave trade certainly misused faith to promote slavery. But does the bible line up with their wants? Can you read the bible on its face value, and justify the slave trade of the 1700s and 1800s. Can actually find these proponents quoting the bible.

For example:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America [15] Jefferson Davis.
Where did he quote the bible? He didn't. His statement is interpretive, but doesn't actually involve interpreting scripture at all. It is a blanket statement that uses vague generalities to condone something, without examining the doctrine itself.

If a Bible were to be written today, how would you expect it would address slavery? I would hope it be along the lines of "slavery is an abomination". Why doesn't The real Bible say the same? Did morality change? Did God change His mind?

I'd like to add my $.02.

First things first, I think the first point Gman made about the "eye for an eye" concept is foundational for the debate you guys are having. It's pretty widely agreed upon that lex talionis is not a prescription for justice, but rather served as a limitation against vengence. It's rather similar to our statement, "The punishment must fit the crime."

Now, while when I first read G's comments about the slave losing an eye/tooth, I was skeptical, but upon further thinking, I have become convinced that he is absolutely correct. The idea seems to be that if a slave is unduly hurt while being disciplined, he is granted his freedom as a means of payment.

That, then, leads to the question of whether or not the Bible condones beating slaves. And to that, I would, quite honestly, give a huge :roll eyes:. Look, the Bible is fine with corporal punishment. Does that mean the Bible is fine if we beat our children? This is where cultural connotations come in. I can "spank" my children, but I can't "beat" them. I think it's rather obvious that what the Bible is condoning is the "spanking" of slaves. Of course, that sounds completely absurd because that is just not how we use the word. But, again, I see nothing immoral about the Bible's condoning of corporal punishment.

Finally, there is the issue of people being the "property" of someone else. In our modern "human rights"/ACLU mindset, the idea of being the "property" of someone else is horrifying. Well I'd like to suggest that a soldier could be considered the "property" of the Army; my wife is my "property" and I am hers. There is a lot going on with this term that would require a thread on its own, but I'd submit the problem only comes up when you force a particular connotation on the word "property" that isn't necessarily required of it.

I'm not, then, sure what the real debate is. The OT Law did NOT, as we have admitted, tell a person that they SHOULD beat their slaves. It condemns beating them harshly (which means that a person could NOT beat a slave within an inch of their life). More broadly, slaves had sufficient status in the Hebrew culture that the more general rule of "an eye for an eye" would have applied to the treatment of them as anyone else. What was condoned (not required) was simply corporal punishment. Unless a person has a moral problem with that, I don't see the debate.

waynepii wrote:If a Bible were to be written today, how would you expect it would address slavery? I would hope it be along the lines of "slavery is an abomination". Why doesn't The real Bible say the same? Did morality change? Did God change His mind?

It does. Do you think American slave owners were loving their slaves as they loved themselves? The answer is no (since they thought blacks were not really human!). Thus, they stand condemned for breaking the Golden Rule.

But more broadly, perhaps, wayne, slavery, in and of itself, isn't so awful. Are we not SLAVES of Christ? The problem is the abuse of slaves. If you don't think there is slavery, even here in America, you are simply deluding yourself. Take the man who owes $200,000 to the bank. Is he not enslaved to his employer under the pain of losing his home and thereby putting his family on the street? Take the man who owes the IRS $50,000. Is he not a slave to the government to repay the debt under the pain of prison? Take the soldier in any branch of the military? Is he not a slave until his contract expires? You may argue those are voluntary, which is deeply debatable, but what of a child who is required to attend the public school system? Is the 17 year old senior in high school not a slave?

What is evil is are certain TYPES of slavery. I think the Bible condemns them well enough under the terms already discussed in this thread, not to mention that wonderful verse, "Love one another as you love yourself."

If a Bible were to be written today, how would you expect it would address slavery?

That's a loaded question. Speculating on how it would be written today is just way off track.

How are you defining slavery? Why would a culture that has no slavery, be given rules from God on how to care for slaves??

waynepii wrote:No - I agreed The Bible does not say "a master should beat his slaves. I claim that it does condone beating your own slave so long as they do not seriously injure or kill the slave (ie "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." - I do not see how that says anything other than "it's OK to beat your slave so long as you don't kill or seriously injure the slave").

Waynepii, slavery, fighting, beating, kidnapping, stealing, etc., is the result of living in a fallen world. That is why it exists... It is not ordained of God although it is allowed. Please see the two links below for a better explanation.

Why is slavery permitted in the Bible?
http://www.carm.org/questions/skeptics- ... tted-bible

A slave is property?
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/ ... e-property

waynepii wrote:So the master simply claims any occurrence of slave-beating was the result of a fight.

Seriously, 21:12-35 deals with situations involving personal injuries. If 21:20-21 was intended to be specific to a fight, why the change in terminology? (21:18 and 21:22 use "hit" as opposed to "beat" as in 21:20)? Further, 21:18 specifically states it applies to "a quarrel" and 21:22 explicitly states it applies to men who are "fighting" - but "quarrel" and "fighting" are conspicuous by their absence from 21:20-21. Further still, why are injuries to the master caused by the slave not dealt with if 21:20 really was intended to apply to an argument between a master and his slave? Do you really think it was acceptable for a slave to defy, quarrel with, and/or fight with his master? If so, is it your opinion or do you have a cite to justify it?

I don't understand.. You don't think that personal injuries are involved in a fight? I'll agree with you that the verse does NOT say that this was the result of a fight. But we can't say that it wasn't either.. That is my point, the text does not say, although a hint might be available in the other texts. So the reason actually could be anything, a fight, a disagreement, self defense, retribution, etc... Technically I would agree that we don't know the real cause. It appears, however, that you think it was brute force used by the master. Again the text does not say...

So you really think that a slave would not defy, quarrel with, and/or fight with his master? You don't think that fights happen between employers and employees in our modern era and that there are laws against this now? What about the recent killings between employees and employers?

Gman wrote:

waynepii wrote:No - I agreed The Bible does not say "a master should beat his slaves. I claim that it does condone beating your own slave so long as they do not seriously injure or kill the slave (ie "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." - I do not see how that says anything other than "it's OK to beat your slave so long as you don't kill or seriously injure the slave").

Waynepii, slavery, fighting, beating, kidnapping, stealing, etc., is the result of living in a fallen world. That is why it exists... It is not ordained of God although it is allowed. Please see the two links below for a better explanation.

Why is slavery permitted in the Bible?
http://www.carm.org/questions/skeptics- ... tted-bible

A slave is property?
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/ ... e-property

So fallen man sets the rules?

Why didn't God give us a Bible that prescribed exactly how we should live and make allowances for the current reality in the "enforcement"? What advantage is there to having The Bible written to address the 2cd millennium BCE realities and then having all the discrepancies between 2cd millennium BCE and 2cd millennium AD make The Bible seem "out of date" giving ammunition to all the atheists. If He had The Bible address 2cd millennium BCE reality to make it "marketable" in the then current world, He should have planned on revisions as man changed. Why wouldn't He have made revisions?

If the NT is His "revision", why is the OT still in effect?

waynepii wrote:So the master simply claims any occurrence of slave-beating was the result of a fight.

Seriously, 21:12-35 deals with situations involving personal injuries. If 21:20-21 was intended to be specific to a fight, why the change in terminology? (21:18 and 21:22 use "hit" as opposed to "beat" as in 21:20)? Further, 21:18 specifically states it applies to "a quarrel" and 21:22 explicitly states it applies to men who are "fighting" - but "quarrel" and "fighting" are conspicuous by their absence from 21:20-21. Further still, why are injuries to the master caused by the slave not dealt with if 21:20 really was intended to apply to an argument between a master and his slave? Do you really think it was acceptable for a slave to defy, quarrel with, and/or fight with his master? If so, is it your opinion or do you have a cite to justify it?

I don't understand.. You don't think that personal injuries are involved in a fight? I'll agree with you that the verse does NOT say that this was the result of a fight. But we can't say that it wasn't either.. That is my point, the text does not say, although a hint might be available in the other texts. So the reason actually could be anything, a fight, a disagreement, self defense, retribution, etc... Technically I would agree that we don't know the real cause. It appears, however, that you think it was bruit force used by the master. Again the text does not say...

Of course a fight may involve injuries. But 21:18 and 21:22 explicitly state they apply to quarrels and fights. You are assuming 21:20-21 is intended to as well.

So you really think that a slave would not defy, quarrel with, and/or fight with his master? You don't think that fights happen between employers and employees in our modern era and that there are laws against this now? What about the recent killings between employees and employers?

If your assumption that Biblical slavery was as benign as you claim is accurate, possibly. On the other hand, if Biblical slavery was more like slavery in the anti-bellum south, probably not, at least not physically.

What advantage is there to having The Bible written to address the 2cd millennium BCE realities and then having all the discrepancies between 2cd millennium BCE and 2cd millennium AD make The Bible seem "out of date" giving ammunition to all the atheists.

If you have sinned, then the bible is as relevant as today's newspaper. Mercy, it is very advantageous. We can contrast the covenant of Law with the covenant of grace. We can see fulfilled prophecy and how God has intentionaly reconciled a fallen world through Christ.

We have everything in the Word to know how to live TODAY. We can also see a specific covenant with a specific people, and how God's plan to reach all was birthed through one captive nation.

Dude, it's essential.