Hobbs

In a thread in E/C, inquisitive01 attempted to defend the Bible's passage about slavery from Exodus 21: 20-21 which says "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property" by saying

inquisitive01, I saw only this quote from you in Sven's response, I did not see your original statement before a moderator edited it out because it was off topic for that forum, so maybe I'm missing something in your interpretation. But what you have done here is to reject the plain meaning of the text (in this "newer" version, which isn't all that much different from the KJV: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money") because the plain meaning puts the Bible in a very bad light.

Can you give me any good reason, other than your personal subjective preference and wishes, to reject what the Bible actually says here and pretend that it says something different from what it actually does say?

Several of us asked you to open a thread here in BC&H if you wanted to pursue the slavery issue. Since I initially brought it up in the E/C thread as a quick example to make a point in response to you in that thread, I'm opening a thread here to give you an opportunity to pursue the issue:

How, inquisitive01, do you defend the Bible's condoning of slavery?

Not_Registered

That is somewhat of a loaded question, and it’s not your fault. I am not saying it isn’t a legitimate question, just that it is loaded. The term “slavery� ensures that the preconceived negative connotations of today are surfaced. As I have said this is not your fault or anything you can control. This is a byproduct of past exploitations and events. It is similar to asking a medical doctor (if he is for its use) “how do you defend the use of marijuana?� Slavery and marijuana are attaching a negative connotation to these two concepts. When one speaks of marijuana, in this age, one thinks of getting high, killing brain cells, and other negative resultants. The doctor is concerned, not of “marijuana�, but with the cannabis plant and how it can seriously help certain people if used correctly. By describing the plant as marijuana, one is attaching a negative view of the substance and detracting from the doctor’s defense of its use. It is similar to describing a black person by using the N word; or any other ethnicity by using a racial slur. That would be an attempt to attach a negative association, which does not apply, to that individual or race.

Let us, in the same manner, dissect the term you choose to use: “slavery.� First, let us look at the biblical passage you used and see what it says about “slavery.�

Exodus 21:20: And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Slavery? I do not see any reference to “slavery� or slaves. I see a reference to servitude and servants; yet, you choose to use the word “slavery.� The original Hebrew word is `ebed, which is translated servant, as shown in the biblical verse above; the same verse which you have used to speak of the bible’s view on “slavery.� Interesting. The word can be translated slave, but let us not confuse our modern-day concept of slave with that of the people in the 1st Century. If you look up an official definition of servitude and slavery and an official definition of servant and slave, the definitions in each pair are very similar and almost interchangeable; but, because of past exploitations and events, the modern-day perception of the two is vastly different. I have listed some definitions below. The “Official Definitions� were taken from dictionary.com.

Official Definitions
servitude

1. see (a) and (b)
   1. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
   2. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.
2. Forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime: penal servitude in labor camp.

slavery

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2. see (a) and (b)
   1. The practice of owning slaves.
   2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

servant

1. One who is privately employed to perform domestic services.
2. One who is publicly employed to perform services, as for a government.
3. One who expresses submission, recognizance, or debt to another: your obedient servant.

slave

1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: “I was still the slave of education and prejudice� (Edward Gibbon).
3. One who works extremely hard.

Modern-day Definitions (as interpreted by Not_Registered)
slavery

1. The state of one bound in oppression as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2. see (a) and (b)
   1. The practice of beating slaves.
   2. A mode of production in which slaves are brutally beat as an incentive to work.

slave

1. One bound in oppression.
2. One who is not equal as human and to be treated even worse than a dog.
3. One who is physically maimed and left with permanent scars.

These definitions do not attach the negative connotation to slavery as is present in today, caused because of slavery’s association with racism, extreme physical abuse, etc. Although these definitions may not match the bible’s definition 100 percent, I have given them to help show how past exploitations and events have led to a completely skewed view of what “slavery� really is. While the modern-day definitions of servitude and servant might be somewhat similar to the official definitions given, the modern-day definition (or concept) of slave and slavery are very different from the official definitions given. The slavery the bible condones is NOT the slavery responsible for the oppression of blacks during the beginning of America.

Really it is foolish to debate whether the bible condones “slavery� or not, because any clear-minded individual can see that the bible condones “slavery�, or servitude. We, instead, should debate the bible’s definition of slavery and the regulations which are associated with it. The bible’s definition of slavery would include what the bible says is acceptable and not acceptable in the realm of slavery. We can use the term “slavery�, because that is a legitimate translation, but we must define the term using the bible’s definition.

Toto

Let's not reinvent the wheel

Slavery in the Bible

Vorkosigan's dissection of Daniel Wallace on slavery

Biblical slavery allowed the master to beat the slave and control his labor. There were some urban household slaves in the Roman Empire who were relatively well treated, but in general you would not choose that status for yourself.

Hobbs

Fine, then, let’s call him a ‘servant’. But whatever you call him, the Bible still says not only that you can own him, it says you can beat him so severely that it takes a couple of days for him to get up, just as long as you don’t go so far as to kill him with your beating. I hardly see how your linguistic quibble solves the real problem here. Let me ask you this: would you want to be a 'servant' as the Bible defines it? I didn't think so. What was that I read about straining at gnats while swallowing camels?

Not_Registered

Texas Law allows for the death penalty. Do we kill every criminal?


The bible contains a rule limiting those who would otherwise voluntarily choose to become slaves. Was this rule for the 1% of the population who would choose to do so? It even contained rules for those who chose to remain under their masters...BDSM in the bible? Kinky.

Not_Registered

Let me ask you this: would you want to be a 'peasant' as the Feudal System of the Middle Ages defines it? (to clarify, let's say you won't get beat)

Angrillori

Now let's look at the part you excised, the following verse:

v. 21 (KJV)
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

or, from NIV v. 21
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

or, from NASB
21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; (13) for he is his property.

or from the NKJV
21Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

The one thing these are all very clear on: the beaten servant is the first man's property.

So, a servant who is the man's money, his property. Sounds like a slave to me.

I thought only xians accused atheists of quoting out of context.

Hobbs

No.

Not_Registered

Exactly, so me saying no (which you knew I would say) to being a slave has nothing to do with the allowing of them being beaten.

Hobbs

Um, yes it does have something to do with the allowing of them being beaten. That is in fact part of how the Bible defines a slave: in addition to being owned in the first place, a slave is someone his owner can savagely beat as long as the beating is not fatal. And it has everything to do with whether the Bible's definition of 'slavery' (which includes the possibility of being beaten) is of an institution or condition of life that you would find acceptable. If you don't find this legally defined and constructed role acceptable for yourself, why would you think it is acceptable for others? Do you not find a problem with bad laws just as long as they don't apply to you?