ApostateltsopA wrote:@mattrose,
Thank you for posting the specific verses, I can see now what happened. So firstly, I'm sorry, in the NIV the verses read exactly as you describe them. I first ran across these verses in the KJV and there the meaning is as I described it.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Of the twenty available translations on Bible Hub only 5 refer to the slave recovering. The remaining 15 refer to the slave lingering for a couple days as letting the owner off the hook. I think the Darby version is the most explicit about the slave only needing to live for a day or two,
Darby Version wrote:Only, if he continue [to live] a day or two days, he shall not be avenged; for he is his money.
All 20 are clear that the slave is the property of the master and none of them specify the need for any reason for the beating. Any and all beatings are condoned.
Actually, the slave was not really thought of as 'property' in Hebrew culture. Numerous other passages talk about the full and equal humanity of slaves. The KJV is accurate on that point. The word is 'money' (not 'property') and specifically refers to the debt still owed to the creditor. The point is, the creditor has a vested interest in keeping his debtor alive and healthy, so he should only be accused of murder (for which he would have received capital punishment) if the evidence is clear.
Now, I've previously stated that the NIV was the best translation, according to apologetic and atheist sources I trust, conditionally. If that is so, this indicates a very disturbing degree of flexibility in understanding what should be a clear instruction. Many of the translations that do not mention recovery are recent. Which backs up my point about the obscurity of the original languages.
It is true that in some (certainly not most) passages we have to do some homework.
I would re-iterate, however, that with either translation, it is possible to provide a 'defense' for the law.
I think you would now agree that the NIV translation renders the law largely un-objectionable from your point of view.
But even with the KJV translation it, first off, doesn't directly say he dies after those 2-3 days. But let's assume he did. As I said before, the point here would be that the creditor obviously wasn't intending to kill the debtor if the death didn't happen immediately. This would move to case, to use modern vernacular, from murder to accidental manslaughter. The KJV says the man shall not be 'punished' (and remember, the word for punish here refers to capital punishment in Hebrew) for accidental manslaughter. It doesn't necessarily mean the guy gets off w/o ANY punishment... only that he will not be sentenced to death for accidently killing someone (much like in our culture).
You are correct that I am frustrated with how you communicate. It isn't being called ignorant, alone that is so obnoxious. It is the way you offer your interpretation as though it were the singularly correct one, and your repeated accusation that I am using the "worst possible" interpretation of these words. The phrase "worst possible" can only be hyperbole.
Well, of course I offer my interpretation as if it is correct. If I didn't believe it was correct, I wouldn't offer it. But I, by no means, speak as if my interpretation is the only POSSIBLE interpretation. This is obvious to anyone who has been reading this exchange. I consistently refer to other POSSIBLE interpretations even while I think one is more PLAUSIBLE. I directly stated that your interpretation was possible.
So I mean 'worst possible' quite literally (not as hyperbole). There is only a small range of possible interpretations for these texts. In the case of Exodus 21:20-21, I'd say there are maybe 3-5 possible interpretations. Yours is the worst (and by that I mean most negative) of the set.
You know I could always layer more contempt, or bias, or negative connotation, into the words. However what I have been offering is a literal reading. (With the caveat that I missed the change of wording in versions of this specific verse.) Your offer only a very positive spin on the events I describe.
I would like to address, briefly, your suggestion that you are offering the literal reading. I don't think that is the case. You're offering the impression you got when you first read the text. But you cannot know that that is the impression I got from my initial/surface-level reading of the text. What you call 'positive spin' might just be my own literal reading. Literally, it doesn't say Jephthah's daughter died (you read that INTO the text). Literally it doesn't say the debtor died (you read that INTO the text too). So it is at least possible that your atheistic tendencies color your interpretations (just like my Christian tendencies color mine)
You limited yourself to only the slavery as described for Hebrew men, and made no mention, at all, of the practice of sex slavery or that these protections did not extend to gentile slaves or women in the same manner as they did to Hebrew men.
If your fault-finding, here, is that I did not talk about every form of slavery in the Old Testament... then I can only say that I don't think it is in the interest of good communication to talk about so many things at once. I said in my earlier post that I prefer to talk about 2 or 3 issues at a time. All of our exchanges are quite long. I thought it made sense to discuss the type of slavery that most certainly made up the vast majority of Hebrew slavery. I always said I was willing to discuss other types separately. That offer still stands, but, for the sake of clarity, the different types shouldn't be blended together.
To add insult to the fire, in this last exchange you accused me of not responding to your points, one of the things I've stated from the beginning is that I may miss things and anyone is welcome to return to something I missed. I've tried, periodically, to prune back what you and I are talking about to keep from being overwhelmed by having to talk coherently about too many things at once. If there is something you feel is important that I have not addressed, please bring it up.
I wasn't 'accusing' you of not responding as an insult. I was simply stating a fact that our conversation was going too fast since so many points were being missed. You responded to a lengthy post with a post about how you didn't want to continue dialog at the moment. That is fine. If you do have time/interest, the thing I'd most like to talk about is the evidence for Jesus. And here's why... I'll defend the Bible against your accusations because I think you're wrong in your interpretations... but I don't actually put my faith in the Bible. I put my faith in Jesus. The Bible is sometimes harder to defend, admittedly. Jesus' existence is easy to defend.
You could become a Christian without believing in the infallibility of Scripture, so I'd rather get to the source of your potential salvation. The only reason I'm willing to dialogue about other issues is that they can serve as roadblocks to Jesus.
You have said that you filter your reading of all the nasty bits through your belief that god is love. The reason I brought up some of the nasty bits was to show, these are not acts of love. In your previous post you waxed on about how there needed to be some system to handle debts, and that these protections of slavery were designed to limit abuse. However the same set of laws has capital punishments for disrespecting one's parents. If this is "limited abuse" the limiting falls grossly short of ethical.
Hopefully, by now, you can see that I'm not trying to be nasty. I'm just responding to accusations against the Bible. I will admit that I've been told my rhetorical style is somewhat aggressive. My reason for arguing strongly for my positions is twofold. First, I believe them. Second, I have always believed that the best way to find truth is to seek it boldly. I don't want to spend precious time beating around bushes. I try to get right to the point. Perhaps I could better nuance my statements so that you can know for sure that the words aren't being typed with malice, but I hope you can just trust that I am not angry or mean. If you're ever in Western NY let me know and you can see for yourself, haha.
As for the capital punishment for disrespecting one's parents... again, look at the NIV (which you agreed was better). The words used are 'attacks' and 'curses'. It's clearly not talking about killing a kid for any level of disrespect. Now THAT would have been genocide! Israel would have ceased to exist within a generation of such a law! The terms 'attack' and 'curse' are very serious terms in Hebrew. We're talking about grown children physically attacking their (most likely elderly) parents. That is a serious offense. And to curse your parents is a level of rage that is dangerous to society.
I think it's best to set aside all the specifics, and look at the difference between our interpretations. You are excusing slavery because of the time it occurred. That is the very definition of relative morality. That I can not use modern understanding of ethics to condemn the ancient practice of slavery.
However according to the bible these rules were being set down by god. You've stated that god is taking his time to reveal things to us. Why? If it is a limitation of men, then that is a design flaw in men and the designer is culpable for its inclusion.
Ah, I think we are starting to get to the heart of the issues now!
1. You wonder why God only revealed things progressively through time
2. You speculate that it's because of the limitation of men
3. You conclude that this is to be blamed on a design flaw by the designer
Number 1 is a good thing to wonder about.
Number 2 is good speculation.
Number 3 is a conclusion that I would argue against.
I'll do so below:
There are two reasons for the limitations of men (and women).
One reason humans are limited is because God's goal is to genuinely mature them. God's goal was never to create an army of robots that behaved just like he wanted them b/c of some program. God's goal was to create real people who really decided to live love. This involves learning and choosing love. This takes time, but is a worthwhile goal (as any parent knows). This is certainly not a design flaw. It is the only way to arrive at the goal.
A second reason humans are limited is because of sin. Humans rebelled against God and believed lies. One set of lies said that some people aren't equal human beings (women, foreigners, the poor, etc.). God told the truth and certainly didn't force humans to believe lies. But, because the project was genuine love, God had to give them the option to reject Him and believe lies. This is not the fault of the designer. What's more, God refuses to give up on us rebels and makes a way for us to come back into relationship with Him so we can become lovers after all.
I think our conversation is really about the problem of evil. Let us set aside the specific transnational or intrepretational issues, for now, and look at that problem. I think we may but heads less doing so....
If there were some great designer, then I would need to believe that slavery, torture, leukemia, flesh eating bacteria, and all the other horrors of existence are there by design. Furthermore that it was cosmically right for them to be there, that they are necessary in some way....
Why do you believe evil and suffering are part of the design?
This is an argument against dualism, not Christianity. Dualism says good & evil are there by design. Christianity says evil is an intruder. I don't believe evil and suffering are part of the design. Genesis 1-3 clearly says otherwise.
Secondly, you keep telling me I'm using the wrong interpretation of the cross. I tried to make it very basic, some problem existed, the solution to this problem was Jesus dying. If Jesus died without solving a problem why did he die? If Jesus dying did solve a problem why do you believe that kind of problem can be solved this way?
Notice that you've changed your wording here. Previously, you're understanding of the cross always had to do with the anger of God and need for someone to die to appease him. Now you've removed that language and I find your statement less objectionable.
Given the fact that you are not yet convinced of Jesus' existence, it may be better to save discussion of the atonement offered through Jesus' life, death, and resurrection for later. But, to put it briefly, I share a view of the atonement with a number of early Christians. I believe that God became flesh in Jesus to serve as a second Adam of sorts. Adam had chosen a wrong path (one of rebellion against God which led to death). Jesus became an Adam(man) to create a new path for humanity (one of loving and proper relationship with God that went through death but conquered it). Jesus became what we are (human) so that we could become what He is (someone in right relationship with God). Adam's path was, literally, a dead-end. Jesus went to that dead-end to put down some new pavement, pavement that led beyond death.