The Meaning Of The Bible

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see it that way. Apparently there are many Jews who don't support the stance Israel has taken over the years since it came into being.

  Does that mean that they, as the extremists in Iran, see the existence of the state of Isreal of a curse?

[jeremyp]

Hi Gordon, my aim here has been to try and defend the Bible. Leviticus 25:44 is the problematic verse, which states an Israelite could own a foreigner. Was thinking about this this morning, having had a break from it.

We know that Israelites were only allowed to become 'slaves' (servants, really) of fellow countrymen temporarily. This doesn't seem to be a problem, morally, given the rules on them being treated fairly and being released after a certain time.

Regarding Leviticus 25:44, I think I may have said this before but not explained fully: there was an underlying issue which may explain why such a law existed. The land was to be owned only by male descendants of Jacob, since God had promised Jacob that his descendants would inherit the land. The only options for a foreigner were to purchase a house in a walled city, if he had money or was employed as a hired worker, or to become attached to an Israelite as a bondservant. Given the provisions made for the latter in the law, the word slave isn't appropriate to describe this status.

This is open to misinterpretation, of course, as was the case when white Americans believed their land was given to them only. In the case of Israel, they had been freed from oppressive slavery and were intended as a blessing for all the nations.

When people start with apologetic nonsense like this, it's often a good idea to check what the Bible actually says and to examine the context

If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. 40 They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then they and their children with them shall be free from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. 42 For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. 43 You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God. 44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

It's clearly saying you can't make Israelites slaves but you can make other people slaves whether they come from foreign lands or live in your country. If the god of the Israelites considered slavery to be morally wrong, as I assume you believe your god does, this passage would not be there. It would just say "don't make or keep slaves".

It clearly says you can pass your foreign slaves on to your children. The word "slave" is utterly appropriate to describe their status.

[Spud]

When people start with apologetic nonsense like this, it's often a good idea to check what the Bible actually says and to examine the context

It's clearly saying you can't make Israelites slaves but you can make other people slaves whether they come from foreign lands or live in your country. If the god of the Israelites considered slavery to be morally wrong, as I assume you believe your god does, this passage would not be there. It would just say "don't make or keep slaves".

It clearly says you can pass your foreign slaves on to your children. The word "slave" is utterly appropriate to describe their status.

God must have considered the treatment of the Israelites by the Egyptians to be morally wrong, because he brought them out of Egypt. So God is not telling the Israelites they can be like the Egyptians. But given that he says the land belongs to the Israelites, this means foreigners could only settle there as guests or servants. I think that is the meaning.

[ProfessorDavey]

God must have considered the treatment of the Israelites by the Egyptians to be morally wrong, because he brought them out of Egypt. So God is not telling the Israelites they can be like the Egyptians. But given that he says the land belongs to the Israelites, this means foreigners could only settle there as guests or servants. I think that is the meaning.

But that only works if god exists - a claim that is devoid of evidence.

If there is no god then this assertion merely means that the Israelites didn't like the treatment they received from the Egyptians (not unreasonable), were able to escape to Palestine and declared that that land belongs to them (but as so often happens with religious sects, claimed their right to the land didn't emanate from themselves but from 'god', for which there is no evidence).

Having done that the Israelites determined that they should be able to have slaves, probably reflecting the treatment they'd received by thinking they should be able to dish it out as well as receive it. Again claiming this to be god's will - see earlier point on existence of god.

So all this amounts to is the classic mantra of: 'oh look, we are special in the eyes of god, he want is to have this land, he agrees we should be able to have slaves' etc etc. Same old, same old - trotted out by religious groups the world over through the centuries.

[Spud]

But that only works if god exists - a claim that is devoid of evidence.

If there is no god then this assertion merely means that the Israelites didn't like the treatment they received from the Egyptians (not unreasonable), were able to escape to Palestine and declared that that land belongs to them (but as so often happens with religious sects, claimed their right to the land didn't emanate from themselves but from 'god', for which there is no evidence).

Don't forget that prior to them taking Palestine, some of them wanted to return to Egypt as they thought they would be better off there than in the desert. The journey was not one they would have made of their own choice, but one of faith. There was also the fact that the Canaanites were bad people, as described at the end of Leviticus 18. Driving them out, destroying or enslaving them would have been the right thing to do, as was the world's combined effort to get rid of Isis. Taking away their land prevented them from continuing to be bad.

Having done that the Israelites determined that they should be able to have slaves, probably reflecting the treatment they'd received by thinking they should be able to dish it out as well as receive it. Again claiming this to be god's will - see earlier point on existence of god.

Your choice of the word 'slave' there reflects the assumption that they would be treating them in the way they had been treated in Egypt. In context, however, 'servant' would be the right word. See for example the sabbath commandment (whether it came from God or was made up) in Deut. 5:14-15, which clearly indicates a distinction between a slave and a servant. Also the Israelites' servants were not bound to their masters in the way that the Pharaoh had bound the Israelites. If they escaped, they were not forced to return.

So all this amounts to is the classic mantra of: 'oh look, we are special in the eyes of god, he want is to have this land, he agrees we should be able to have slaves' etc etc. Same old, same old - trotted out by religious groups the world over through the centuries.

The Israelites' right to live as free people came with the condition of good conduct.

[Roses]

Don't forget that prior to them taking Palestine, some of them wanted to return to Egypt as they thought they would be better off there than in the desert. The journey was not one they would have made of their own choice, but one of faith. There was also the fact that the Canaanites were bad people, as described at the end of Leviticus 18. Driving them out, destroying or enslaving them would have been the right thing to do, as was the world's combined effort to get rid of Isis. Taking away their land prevented them from continuing to be bad.

Your choice of the word 'slave' there reflects the assumption that they would be treating them in the way they had been treated in Egypt. In context, however, 'servant' would be the right word. See for example the sabbath commandment (whether it came from God or was made up) in Deut. 5:14-15, which clearly indicates a distinction between a slave and a servant. Also the Israelites' servants were not bound to their masters in the way that the Pharaoh had bound the Israelites. If they escaped, they were not forced to return.

The Israelites' right to live as free people came with the condition of good conduct.

What evidence is there  to support your statements? The Bible has never been evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Driving them out, destroying or enslaving them would have been the right thing to do,...

So you're a proponent of ethnic cleansing, genocide and slavery then. Do you have any sense at all of how morally corrupted your religious faith has made you? 

[Spud]

What evidence is there  to support your statements? The Bible has never been evidence.

A lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen as recorded.

[Gordon]

A lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen as recorded.

Ah - the dear old NPF is getting an outing.

If I 'record' that I have a dragon in my garage would that be sufficient for you to accept that I have a dragon in my garage and would you go as far (putting Covid restrictions to one side for the sake of argument) to venture northwards to check?

[Roses]

A lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen as recorded.

True, but if that something is less than credible, like a lot of things stated in the Bible, its veracity should be questioned.

[Andy]

A lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen as recorded.

It’s a great reason for not believing something happened though, and that’s the point.

[Spud]

Spud,

So you're a proponent of ethnic cleansing, genocide and slavery then.

No. You need to look at the big picture: 24“ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18

Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
Deuteronomy 7

[Nearly Sane]

No. You need to look at the big picture: 24“ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18

You worship a murdering thug.

[Spud]

You worship a murdering thug.

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,

[Nearly Sane]

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,

Sorry, you worship an arrogant lying murderous thug.

[torridon]

No. You need to look at the big picture: 24“ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18

Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
Deuteronomy 7

So, the 'bigger picture' reveals that being merciless trumps being merciful, and intolerance trumps inclusivity.

[Spud]

So, the 'bigger picture' reveals that being merciless trumps being merciful, and intolerance trumps inclusivity.

The discussion about slavery having been derailed through my reply to #403, I will attempt to answer that post again.

[Spud]

But that only works if god exists - a claim that is devoid of evidence.

But how do you know there isn't a God? And in a world where, morally, everyone should work to provide for their basic needs such as roof over head/food/clothes, how do you justify imposing your belief in God's non-existence on Israelite society, even when all the immoral aspects of slavery are eliminated for them (hence the KJV always translates slave as 'servant' or 'bondservant')?

[Roses]

But how do you know there isn't a God? And in a world where, morally, everyone should work to provide for their basic needs such as roof over head/food/clothes, how do you justify imposing your belief in God's non-existence on Israelite society, even when all the immoral aspects of slavery are eliminated for them (hence the KJV always translates slave as 'servant' or 'bondservant')?

Excuses, excuses!

[Gordon]

But how do you know there isn't a God?

I, for one, don't claim to know that there isn't a 'God'.

And in a world where, morally, everyone should work to provide for their basic needs such as roof over head/food/clothes, how do you justify imposing your belief in God's non-existence on Israelite society, even when all the immoral aspects of slavery are eliminated for them (hence the KJV always translates slave as 'servant' or 'bondservant')?

I don't have a belief in the non-existence of 'God', and it seems to me that you really don't understand what atheism normally entails.

[Roses]

If a god does exist it doesn't do it any credit that its existence is merely a matter of belief.

[Spud]

I, for one, don't claim to know that there isn't a 'God'.

I don't have a belief in the non-existence of 'God', and it seems to me that you really don't understand what atheism normally entails.

So are you open to the possibility that Israel had an experience of God?

[Gordon]

So are you open to the possibility that Israel had an experience of God?

Only if the claim is underpinned by an argument, or evidence, that isn't easily refuted - so I'd need a lot more that anecdotes in an old book of uncertain provenance. In addition, this argument, or evidence, would need to be robust enough to counter any objections to any other arguments advanced for 'God'.

I'm not holding my breath though.

[Spud]

Only if the claim is underpinned by an argument, or evidence, that isn't easily refuted - so I'd need a lot more that anecdotes in an old book of uncertain provenance. In addition, this argument, or evidence, would need to be robust enough to counter any objections to any other arguments advanced for 'God'.

I'm not holding my breath though.

What about if the society to which the custom of having servants (as 'property') pertains, believes it has experienced God? If that society obeys all the instructions on fair treatment, won't it appear to onlookers to be a system that works? For example, we might see that servants love their masters as described in Exodus 21:5, or an example where a master gives his daughter to his foreign servant in marriage (1 Chronicles 2:34-35). Could that be evidence that they had experienced God?

[Roses]

What about if the society to which the custom of having servants (as 'property') pertains, believes it has experienced God? If that society obeys all the instructions on fair treatment, won't it appear to onlookers to be a system that works? For example, we might see that servants love their masters as described in Exodus 21:5, or an example where a master gives his daughter to his foreign servant in marriage (1 Chronicles 2:34-35). Could that be evidence that they had experienced God?

NO!