To inerrantists & other conservative Christians: Bible's condoning of rape & slavery?

[Diane Vera]

In goldenbug's intro thread Greetings! (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2515), u-dog wrote:

Actually, Diane, I think we run the gammet from hyper-Liberal to conservative evangelical. the thing that most of us have in common is that we do not believe that the Gospel excludes the possibility of "gay being OK"

Personally, I like to describe my theology as "Orthodox" in that I pretty much buy the whole package (see the Apostle's and Nicene creeds for details) Unlike Goldenbug I don't believe that the Gospel teaches Non-monogamy. LIKE Goldenburg I also don't think that it teaches any PARTICULAR relationship or family structure. I believe that the WHOLE of Scripture promotes the Hebrew notion of "HESED" (sometimes translated "steadfast Love" or "Covenant Love". I believe that if a relationship structure is characterized by "Hesed" it is probably moral. If it does not (like master/slave sex or child molesting, or rape, or objectifying sex) than it is not moral.

How do you reconcile your statement above about "the WHOLE of scripture," plus your own views on sexual morality, with those Bible passages discussed on the following pages?

Rape In The Bible (http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm)
The Pro-Rape Pagans? (http://www.wildhunt.org/2005/12/pro-rape-pagans-worldnetdaily-has-just.html)

You're not a Biblical inerrantist. I would be even more interested to see what any inerrantists here have to say about the Bible passages discussed on the above pages.

[suzer1013]

Hi Diane! I'm not sure if "Orthodox" necessarily equals believing the Bible is "inerrant." I think there's a leap being made there. Many people consider themselves orthodox in "essentials" (simply put -- belief that Jesus was Divine, belief in a corporeal resurrection, etc.), while not being strict Biblical literalists. I'm not sure anyone can be a strict Biblical literalist -- seems impossible to me. (Though some fundamentalists will claim they are and that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, it is not difficult to show them that they are not, truly, upholding literal interpretation of scripture. None of us would be wearing polyester if that were true! :) )

Susan

[Diane Vera]

Hi Diane! I'm not sure if "Orthodox" necessarily equals believing the Bible is "inerrant."

I realize it doesn't. By referring to "inerrantists and other conservative Christians," my thread title is intended to imply that not all conservative Christians are inerrantists. U-dog has self-described as "Orthodox," which U-dog defined as agreeing with the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds, but in a separate thread has denounced inerrantism.

[suzer1013]

Of course, I hate to wear polyester anyway! ;) But the same would go for any other Levitical law that we don't follow today.

Susan

[bryanf]

There are several different streams of thoughts that identify themselves with inerrancy. Could you specify by what exactly you mean by inerranciest?

There are those who argue that all of the scriptures are literal and should be followed and there contains no error in them.

There are those who argue that God has been moving through history and that his work in progression of it is non-contradictory and thus all of Scripture can be reconciled by looking at it through the lens of God interacting through time with his people.

There are those who argue who argue that "the scripture is without error in all that it teaches and affirms of God and the things in relation to the divine". Thus there can be data error in the text but the Scripture itself in its primary purpose as Canon is still without error.

And there are still so many other variant views of inerrancy. So please specify which view of inerrancy you want.

By the way Diane I hope you are doing well. I always enjoy your post/threads. ;o)

[BruceChris]

John Spong uses the first 200 pages of his 250 page book, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" to just hit the high points, when it came to pointing up the inconcistancies, inaccuracys, and out right contradictions in the bible.

One verse that really point this out is the one where it says "God does not listen to sinners" (John 9-31), and, of course, we're all sinners.

Jesus himself was called a sinner, for working on the Sabbath.

So, should we all just sit around and feel terrible for being sinners, or should we get up off our butts and go out and do something to make the world a better place? (The answer to this probably depends on whether we listen to people who are judgemental, or the ones who are celebratory)

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Diane Vera]

There are several different streams of thoughts that identify themselves with inerrancy. Could you specify by what exactly you mean by inerranciest?

I would be interested to hear how all the different kinds of inerrantists deal with the mentioned passages.

What kind of inerrantist are you, if you're an inerrnatist of any kind?

[u-dog]

I believe that God created the universe(s?) I believe that what God created is good.

I believe that, for reasons I don't fully understand, human beings continually try to usurp God's place at the center of life and that we suffer the consequent pain of that.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Logos, the Word made flesh.

That he is both divine and Human

That as such he is the second person of the Triune God

That he died on the cross and that that death is salvific in that it restores the proper relationships between creation and creator.

That he rose again (bodily) from the grave and that by doing so destroyed the power of death. that one day I too will rise from the grave and be given a new body (I'm thinking... something in a nice 18 year-old, blond, very buff with six-pack abs ... but you know... I'm not picky)

I believe that the Scripture of the Hebrew and Christian Covenants are a gift from God and that they exist in the form in which God intends for us to have them.

However, I have not found the owners manual/operating instructions that tell us exactly what we are supposed to do with them or how to use them
.

I have come to believe that the primary purpose of Scripture is to introduce us to the Word made Flesh and that by the power of the Holy Spirit we are led to the foot of the cross, encouraged to look up into the eyes of the man who hangs there -- to the mouth of the empty tomb to look into the eyes of the gardner who speaks our name -- and to understand that in him (through him) we are seeing the very heart of the creator of the universe. The Word of God made Flesh will then begin to transform our lives.

I believe that the secondary purpose of scripture is to guide our choices as we decide how we will respond in gratitude to the gracious act of God on our behalf.

I believe that Biblical Inerrancy is idolatrous. that it elevates a thing and puts in the place of God. I beleive that if it were possible for God to reveal Godself in a book of instructions then Jesus life and his death on the cross and his resurrection would have been unnecessary.

How are these views inconsistant Diane?

Dave

[Diane Vera]

I have come to believe that the primary purpose of Scripture is to introduce us to the Word made Flesh and that by the power of the Holy Spirit we are led to the foot of the cross, encouraged to look up into the eyes of the man who hangs there -- to the mouth of the empty tomb to look into the eyes of the gardner who speaks our name -- and to understand that in him (through him) we are seeing the very heart of the creator of the universe. The Word of God made Flesh will then begin to transform our lives.

I believe that the secondary purpose of scripture is to guide our choices as we decide how we will respond in gratitude to the gracious act of God on our behalf.

I believe that Biblical Inerrancy is idolatrous. that it elevates a thing and puts in the place of God. I beleive that if it were possible for God to reveal Godself in a book of instructions then Jesus life and his death on the cross and his resurrection would have been unnecessary.

How are these views inconsistant Diane?

Dave

Dunno if your views are inconsistent. That would depend on the details. What I asked you about was, specifically, the following, not just your views about scripture in general:

I believe that the WHOLE of Scripture promotes the Hebrew notion of "HESED" (sometimes translated "steadfast Love" or "Covenant Love". I believe that if a relationship structure is characterized by "Hesed" it is probably moral. If it does not (like master/slave sex or child molesting, or rape, or objectifying sex) than it is not moral.

How do you interpret the Bible passages that appear to condone or even promote rape, slavery, and combinations thereof? Or would you simply say that you don't know what to make of them? In any case, how do you reconcile those Bible passages with your statement that "the WHOLE of Scripture promotes the Hebrew notion of 'HESED' (sometimes translated 'steadfast Love' or 'Covenant Love'"?

[u-dog]

How do you interpret the Bible passages that appear to condone or even promote rape, slavery, and combinations thereof?

I read all of the texts of both Testaments through the lens of Christ, his life, his teachings, his death and resurrection. Since nothing in him can possible be seen to condone rape, slavery, or any combination thereof I must assume that in fact these texts DO NOT condone those things. those texts must serve some other purpose - and God must have some other purpose in allowing them to remain in Scripture.

If I were motivated to know what that other purpose might be (which to be truthful... I'm not. But if YOU are I would recommend Phyliss Tribble's book "The Texts of Terror") , I would study the texts as closely as possible in their cultural, and textual context and discern as far as possible the source and authorship of the text, when it was written, for whom, and in response to what events. I would research to what use the text was put by the people for whom it was intended. I would ask "what was at stake here for the writer and what similar thing might be at stake for me in my context?" I might ask, "what can I learn about the people and culture from which Jesus arose and of which he was a part?" I might ask, "What insights do these texts reveal about the people to whom Jesus was addressing his teaching?" I would ask "How do I account for the seeming disparity between this text and the teachings and the worldview of Jesus?" Finally, I would pray for guidance in understanding it. Eventually I would set it aside until such time as it might yield some piece of the truth to me. for years I avoided the Gospel of John and most of Paul's writings because they were absolutely opaque to me. Then one day, I read a book, or talked to someone, or took a class and they started to unfold for me! Now I find Paul's theology and Rhetoric fascinating and amazing and I can't ever decide which Gospel I like better, John? or Mark?


Or would you simply say that you don't know what to make of them? In any case, how do you reconcile those Bible passages with your statement that "the WHOLE of Scripture promotes the Hebrew notion of 'HESED' (sometimes translated 'steadfast Love' or 'Covenant Love'"?

At the last passover supper with his disciple Jesus says "This cup is the new covenant sealed in my blood" As I look back through the books of the Hebrew Scriptures I see several times when God makes covenant with the People of Israel. The implicit covenant with the creation, The covenant with Noah, the covenant with Abraham and Sarah and their descendants, The covenant with David and his line. In addition, the term "Hesed" (covenant love) is used repeatedly throughout the Psalms and the Prophets to describe the essential nature of God. Looking back from the Last Supper, what I see is that God is the God who makes and keeps promises. God makes covenantal relationship with this flea bitten bunch of nobodies. God makes promises to them. they make promises to God. God keeps up his end of the bargain irrespective of whether the people keep up their end of the deal (which they mostly don't). The ultimate manifestation of that covenant making nature is the Christ who seals a new and eternal covenant in his own blood (referring back to the practice of sealing treaties and contracts and covenants in the blood of sacrificial animals) which applies not only to the Jews but to all of humanity.

When I make decisions about my relationships (sexual and otherwise) I don't go to Judges to find out if rape and baby killing are ok. I ask myself if the relationship I am engaging in and the way I am engaging in it reflects and bears witness to ways in which God relates to human beings. Can I commit myself to the well-being of this "other" regardless of how the "other" commits to me? Is there anything of "Hesed" in what I am doing and in how I am being?

dave

[Pablo Rafael]

There are several different streams of thoughts that identify themselves with inerrancy.

Good point, Ben (Did I remember your name correctly? I like real names better than user names for some reason.) By the way, cool picture.

I identify myself as one who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, but not a literal interpretation. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that the ideas expressed therein are from God. The Bible must be interpreted to be understood. One cannot isolate one section of the Bible without looking at the whole. One must see the Bible in its historical context through the lens of God's grace.


Diane, I would like to give you a more well-thought-out response for this topic captured my interest. But, being in a bit of a rush, I will give you a quick opinion.

I think that the just becasue an event is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that God approves of it. Also I think that God works through sinful people. The ancient Hebrews were not perfect, but God used them to fulfill his plan. If he had waited for a sinless people, he would still be waiting. I also think that God could use events like European colonization to fullfill spread the message of the Gospel, despite the evil and suffering that colonization caused. To see the Bible through grace means that we know that God loves us and all people, and that opression, violence and slavery can never be a part of his plan. He can deal with and work through sinful people, but sin is never acceptable.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Diane Vera]

Diane, I would like to give you a more well-thought-out response for this topic captured my interest. But, being in a bit of a rush, I will give you a quick opinion.

Thanks for your interest. Perhaps you can give a more detailed response later?

I think that the just becasue an event is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that God approves of it. Also I think that God works through sinful people. The ancient Hebrews were not perfect, but God used them to fulfill his plan. If he had waited for a sinless people, he would still be waiting. I also think that God could use events like European colonization to fullfill spread the message of the Gospel, despite the evil and suffering that colonization caused.

The Bible passages quoted on the pages linked in my first post in this thread do not just describe events. Some of them contain what are said to be commands of God.

To see the Bible through grace means that we know that God loves us and all people, and that opression, violence and slavery can never be a part of his plan.

Then how do you interpret the fact that the Bible does not contain any prohibition against slavery? There are commandments on how slaves are to be treated. This would seem to imply that slavery itself is acceptable.

[Diane Vera]

If I were motivated to know what that other purpose might be (which to be truthful... I'm not. But if YOU are I would recommend Phyliss Tribble's book "The Texts of Terror") , I would study the texts as closely as possible in their cultural, and textual context and discern as far as possible the source and authorship of the text, when it was written, for whom, and in response to what events. I would research to what use the text was put by the people for whom it was intended. I would ask "what was at stake here for the writer and what similar thing might be at stake for me in my context?" I might ask, "what can I learn about the people and culture from which Jesus arose and of which he was a part?" I might ask, "What insights do these texts reveal about the people to whom Jesus was addressing his teaching?" I would ask "How do I account for the seeming disparity between this text and the teachings and the worldview of Jesus?" Finally, I would pray for guidance in understanding it.

I'm not Christian myself, so this issue isn't really my problem. I'm just interested in seeing some of the ways that different kinds of conservative Christians (including inerrantists) reason on this issue -- which may yield some insights on how to confront fundies about the anti-gay prohibitions as well.

[andrewlittle]

... but I, personally, do value scripture and it's inherently difficult passages.

I believe the Hebrew scriptures (OT) are a historical compilation of theological thoughts about God, God's agency in the world, and the mistakes humanity has made along the path of understanding, as opposed to being a time-line history of a people.

I think, because of the flow, that they capture humanity's sins against God as lessons for those that came after - these sins including assumptions about God that were unrighteous.

Rationalization that God wanted humans to do ugly, illegal, murderous and shameful things is not limited to a contemporary governmental figure with neo-conservative, dominating views. That same kind of rationalization has, in my mind, been captured in the OT for us to learn from.

When the Israelites came into Canaan they were "ordered" to drive out and kill all the original inhabitants, and according to some parts of the book of Joshua that was accomplished. According to Judges, however the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites, and suffered because of it. How could this develop?

The people feel they are chosen by God, and enter Canaan to claim the promised land. All did not go well, however, because life wasn't a cake walk and eventually they were exiled and oppressed. When that piece of scripture was written, the story-teller(s)/author(s) knew what had happened and that God seemed to have abandoned the Israelites.

"Well, since it can't be "our fault", it must be because of someone else. It must be those dang Canaanites who were here before us. I mean, try as we might, it was just too much of a temptation when they're out there worshipping those other gods - who could blame us for being curious and indulging. If they weren't here, we wouldn't have been tempted. I bet God would have wanted us to kill them and drive them out so we wouldn't have caved in to that temptation. That's it - God wanted that, but we didn't do it. It's their fault, and we're suffering the consequences."

Likewise for rape, murder, pillage, etc. I believe they were rationalizations to justify despicable behavior - just like we (U.S. culture) are now doing. "These others are evil - so any actions are justified by God."

If God had really wanted these things to occur, we wouldn't have the prophets showing up. Not one came saying, "Attaboy, attagirl, you're doing what I said." They came and said, "You know why you haven't got the land - why you're exiled? It's because of the way you've behaved in the land. You've mistreated the alien and stranger, you've broken my commandments. You - not these other people - have been unrighteous in this land you claim as your own."

The flow is from one mistake to another, with an unwinding and progressing ethic of living into God's commandments of loving God and loving neighbor. Along the way, sinister acts were done in God's name, and there were a string of people "sent by God" to point out those sins to the Israelites.

What amazes me is the fact that voices critical of the mainstream culture survived in scriptural form to make up the lessons about humankinds mistakes. I am surprised they didn't get swept under the rug.

[Daniel]

What amazes me is the fact that voices critical of the mainstream culture survived in scriptural form to make up the lessons about humankinds mistakes. I am surprised they didn't get swept under the rug.

What amazes me is that, the keepers of 'things that matter' ie history, art and culture, are often gay persons. We rebuild and reinvigorate neighborhoods no one wants to live in, take care of those less unfortunate than ourselves and generally 'help out'. We are a gentle people. I fancy that it has always been thus. And while our personal stories may not have survived, our 'art' has. That may include the recording of scripture itself. Isn't that a provocative thought?

[u-dog]

... but I, personally, do value scripture and it's inherently difficult passages.

... What amazes me is the fact that voices critical of the mainstream culture survived in scriptural form to make up the lessons about humankinds mistakes. I am surprised they didn't get swept under the rug.


I'm glad you made this point Andy because its something that I have always been amazed at also. Look at the stories of King David. what other people in all the history of the world have taken pains to remember that their "HERO" their archtypical good guy... was also a grade "A" asshole sometimes? this is profound.

Also, the Bible does something else that no other book does... It "saves" a record of disagreements and disputes. After the exile in Babylon, Israel was faced with the dilemna of how to explain God's failure to protect them from Babylon. Ezra and Nehemia save the "we allowed ourselves to be polluted by outside influences and should in the future stick to our own kind" argument. Jonah and Isaiah record the "Our God is universal and has a plan for the whole world and we have a place in that plan" argument. The rule is that the victors write the history ... the Bible (and the people who collected it and the Spirit that motivated them) seems willing to break that rule.

[Diane Vera]

IAlso, the Bible does something else that no other book does... It "saves" a record of disagreements and disputes.

The Israelites were not the only culture to preserve a variety of points of view. The Greek philosophers also had a variety of points of view, and in some cases their views varied radically over the course of their lifetimes. For example, Plato's early writings (e.g. Euthyphro and Apology) portray Socrates as a martyr to the cause of independent thought and questioning, whereas Plato's Republic portrays Socrates as a censorship-mad fascist.

[andrewlittle]

What amazes me is that, the keepers of 'things that matter' ie history, art and culture, are often gay persons. We rebuild and reinvigorate neighborhoods no one wants to live in, take care of those less unfortunate than ourselves and generally 'help out'. We are a gentle people. I fancy that it has always been thus. And while our personal stories may not have survived, our 'art' has. That may include the recording of scripture itself. Isn't that a provocative thought?

But, as I said in another post, I agree. I also agree that it is "provocative" - perhaps that's why it made me smile my biggest smile of the past week.

As Dave pointed out, history is written by the victors, which makes the Bible an anomaly. It is a compilation of many voices, many streams of thought, and as such is, in my opinion, a great work of collective art.

I can believe wholeheartedly that women and GLBT has a significant role in that, no matter what tradition says.

[Pablo Rafael]

Then how do you interpret the fact that the Bible does not contain any prohibition against slavery? There are commandments on how slaves are to be treated. This would seem to imply that slavery itself is acceptable.

Diane,

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

I would very certainly say that the Bible DOES speak against slavery. From the beginning to the end. With the idea of love as the central theme of the Bible and of all salvation history, slavery cannot be acceptable. Such recurring statements as "God is love", "Love one another", "They will know we are Christians by our Love",Love the Lord your God", "Love your neighbor as you love yourself","Love is a many splendored thing", "Love makes the world go 'round", "All you need is love" (oops.. think I'm getting into modern-day musicals with those last few.) The whole idea of the Bible opposes slavery and oppression.

In the early days of the United States when slave owners used the statement from the Bible, "Slaves obey your masters" as supporting slavery, they went counter to the entire idea of the Bible. I believe that that command was given because people disobey the intentions of God. If a person is a slave, he should serve the Lord as he has opportunity. It does not mean that God approves of slavery. In the Old Testament God told us that we were not to keep slaves because our people were slaves in Egypt. Jesus told the pharisees that God does not approve of divorce, but gave Moses rules regarding it because we (as people in general) were weak. I think God gives us rules about treatment of slaves because people are weak and are not able to live 100% as God intends; therefore we must have rules to keep us in line.

If anyone uses the Bible to opress others, they are absolutely wrong. The message of the Bible is a message of love. Anything that does not begin with that is an error in interpretation in my opinion.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[BrentRichards]

Another thing to consider here: One of the problems we gay folk have in the way others interpret scripture is that when they read "homosexual" in their modern translation (or sodomite, or something else that suggests homosexuality to them) they assume it means all the things they and others in today's world associate with homosexuality. As if words, concepts, and such do not change over time.

Similarly, when we read "slavery" we assume it is the same institution as what happened in our country with black African slaves, for example. In reality, the concept in Biblical times was probably quite a bit different, or at least quite a bit more variable. "Slavery" in Biblical parlance could also include indentured servitude, and something akin to medieval serfdom. Not that those things are all that great either, but it's important to remember that OUR understanding and definition of a word/construct is not necessarily the same as the Biblical understanding.

Also, several have alluded to this, even though the slavery referred to might not have been what we think of as slavery, the New Testament nonetheless encourages slaves to obtain their freedom if possible, and urges masters to treat their slaves fairly (a "making the best of a bad situation" solution?).

Just to be safe, I have to throw in my favorite answer here, which is: Gee, I dunno...

[bryanf]

I wish I had more time to answer this but in desperate need of sleep at the moment. Long day. Long weekend. Long week. But hey atleast its going well with the new guy I am dating. ;o) (Just thought I'd spread some of my joy around a bit.)

Hey Pablo thanks for your kind words and yes my name is Ben.

Diane I am not what most protestants would call an inerrancist but I do fall within its category in various other streams.

So a quick glance of my view of Scripture. I believe God to be an individual working throughout history revealing himself to us and to all of creation. I believe he has had to been progressive with humanity as it has matured and changed throughout the ages. As such God has accomdated himself in and through time to us, to our situations, and to the future. Many of the passages of the Old Testament such as certain levitical law were suited specificly for the people of the time. I believe God to be both in and outside of time. I believe God, whom is always both in all ponts of time yet outside of time, is unchangable and never changing. (man I have to cut this alot shorter than I thought I am so falling asleep at the keyboard). As such what has been witnessed of God's character and that which pertains to him is unchanging. He is both a God of wrath and of love, mercy & justice, king & servant, and friend & brother. I do believe Scripture does indeed record salvation history accurately in regards to the things that pertain to our relationship with God and in general the Divine. (And I wish now I remembered where this thought is going, just fell asleep again at the keyboard). Ummm I forgot where I am going with this now... time for sleep.

[u-dog]

Nice job of theologizing.... for a zombie.:lol: (I have this picture of you in my mind stumbling into the bathroom and realizing that you have a keyboard imprinted on your face.

[Blossom]

John Spong uses the first 200 pages of his 250 page book, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" to just hit the high points, when it came to pointing up the inconcistancies, inaccuracys, and out right contradictions in the bible.

One verse that really point this out is the one where it says "God does not listen to sinners" (John 9-31), and, of course, we're all sinners.

Jesus himself was called a sinner, for working on the Sabbath.


Hi Bruce Chris,

Spong had better have some better examples of biblical inconsistency. Before comparing how one word is used throughout the Bible, you must first isolate the context in which the various authors are using that word (at least if you are serious about your theology). Everyone cheats to some degree in Bible study, but to make a serious claim such as Spong is making, he'd better avoid such cheap comparisons. Also, the accusation that Jesus was a sinner (for doing good on the Sabbath) in no way means that he was a sinner (and the Gospel writers certainly were not implying this).

Peace to you,
Blossom

[ladyinred]

I personally cannot reconcile violent acts condoned in the old testament as coming form God. How come the scriptures would say any man who sheds blood will have his own blood shed in certain bible verses and then say that God actually condoned and sanctioned murder in others. This speaks of inconsistencies and incongruencies.

And portrays God as wishy washy or contradictory. How can God say one thing and then at another turn contradict himself? It just doesn't make alot of sense to me. I would say that the people and the things written in the bible were not perfect and did perhaps justify an agenda that really had nothing to do with God, and perhaps in the course of history and throughout the bible the sending of prophets was God's way of saying,"Hey wait a minute, you got it wrong that was not what I intended."

People are fallible, but I do not believe God is capable of such human error and faulty reasoning. And people are subjected to personal biases and opinions too. I can't say I fully understand the bible, I don't.

They say that bible moralities don't change but it seems in context they do throughout the course of history and even in the bible,it does not seem to have a fixed absolute unchangeable ideal of morality.It seems that there is a evolving sense of what morality is as time goes by and things change with the times and customs.

Perhaps the Hebrews of the old testament had no other means of survival and were surrounded by hostile nations and had no other recourse but to fight in order to survive. Perhaps they felt that there were things and factors outside their control that might threaten their way of life and worship of God.. I haven't read the bible from page to page.. but perhaps it would explain things better if we didn't try to identify their perspectives from our present day vantage point, how they viewed the world had more to do with the times and state of affairs, the cultures and other factors.

[tdogg]

Similarly, when we read "slavery" we assume it is the same institution as what happened in our country with black African slaves, for example. In reality, the concept in Biblical times was probably quite a bit different, or at least quite a bit more variable. "Slavery" in Biblical parlance could also include indentured servitude, and something akin to medieval serfdom. Not that those things are all that great either, but it's important to remember that OUR understanding and definition of a word/construct is not necessarily the same as the Biblical understanding.

Also, several have alluded to this, even though the slavery referred to might not have been what we think of as slavery, the New Testament nonetheless encourages slaves to obtain their freedom if possible, and urges masters to treat their slaves fairly (a "making the best of a bad situation" solution?).


Excellent point Brent. The ancient 'pay' system was nothing like ours (that is clear not only in the Bible but in other historical texts). When the bible talks about slavery, it isn't necessary talking about it in the same context we may envision. Also, it's interesting to note that according to the modern Bible anyway, the Hebrews were practically always enslaved themselves.

Do I believe the Bible is inerrant? Not in the way that means you have to take everything literally and not consider the time and place where the original words were written compared to our time and place in the modern world. I do believe that those who wrote the original words may even have gotten some of them wrong. However, I do believe that the Bible is a gift to us from God, to be used as a guide and with much prayer and meditation, to determine the personal meaning to our individual life.

Hi Blossom! I believe what BruceChris was saying, was that there are those in Jesus time who believed and called him a sinner because he worked on the Sabbath (not that Spong was calling him a sinner at all). It's obvious that many believed Jesus was a criminal and his acts driven by evil, that's why they had to ensure he was tortured and put to death. Much the same way there are those today who believe gays and lesbians are evil, and some even belief we should be put to death in accordance to their own interpretation of what the Bible says. Spong is an excellent writer, if you have already read any of his numerous works, I highly recommend you dive into one.

[goldenbug]

Another thing to consider here: One of the problems we gay folk have in the way others interpret scripture is that when they read "homosexual" in their modern translation (or sodomite, or something else that suggests homosexuality to them) they assume it means all the things they and others in today's world associate with homosexuality. As if words, concepts, and such do not change over time.

Similarly, when we read "slavery" we assume it is the same institution as what happened in our country with black African slaves, for example. In reality, the concept in Biblical times was probably quite a bit different, or at least quite a bit more variable. "Slavery" in Biblical parlance could also include indentured servitude, and something akin to medieval serfdom. Not that those things are all that great either, but it's important to remember that OUR understanding and definition of a word/construct is not necessarily the same as the Biblical understanding.

Also, several have alluded to this, even though the slavery referred to might not have been what we think of as slavery, the New Testament nonetheless encourages slaves to obtain their freedom if possible, and urges masters to treat their slaves fairly (a "making the best of a bad situation" solution?).

Just to be safe, I have to throw in my favorite answer here, which is: Gee, I dunno...

Brent,

You make a great point here! We interpret so much of the Bible through our Western cultural lense. The culture and times in which the Bible were written were vastly different than our own. However, we constantly interpret the pages of Scripture through the lense of 21st century culture. The challenge for those of us who are evangelical is to struggle with the Scripture so that we might understand what its true message is for us today. I loved your closing line! One of my constant griefs with Fundamentalists that I know is that they HAVE (or so they think) the answer for everything!

I come from a very fundamentalist background and have preached for some 24 years. I have come to the place on a number of things where I have to just say, "Gee, I dunno!" :) The Bible does not have the answer to everything Scientific! The Bible does not have the answer to all things sexual! The Bible does seem to contradict itself in places! There are things unexplainable! And most importantly for me I have learned that there is a wideness in God's mercy and grace that we can not fathom! I can be wrong in these areas yet believe I am right and still go to Heaven! Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. It is through the finished work of Christ on the cross and it is not by works that you and I do or don't do! Period! There is a great release and freedom in discovering this! At least there was for me! :)

[BrentRichards]

There are things unexplainable! And most importantly for me I have learned that there is a wideness in God's mercy and grace that we can not fathom! I can be wrong in these areas yet believe I am right and still go to Heaven! Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. It is through the finished work of Christ on the cross and it is not by works that you and I do or don't do! Period! There is a great release and freedom in discovering this! At least there was for me! :)

BINGO! (Which is as close as a Presbyterian is allowed to get to shouting "Amen!")

[u-dog]

It was the CATHOLICS who shouted "Bingo!" :confused:

[BrentRichards]

Oh, right, sorry!

[ReligionProf]

For anyone interested in a serious, scholarly, Christian approach to the Bible that directly challenges ideas of inerrancy and the fundamentalists' claims to 'believe the whole Bible' and to 'take it all literally', I'd particularly recommend Keith Ward's recent books, What the Bible Really Teaches and Rethinking Christianity. I've commented at length on both books on my blog at http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/

[u-dog]

Thanks religionprof! Of the two which one do you recommend to read first?

[ReligionProf]

I'd definitely recommend reading What the Bible Really Teaches first, for the following reasons: First, because I found it most helpful (but that may be simply because of how it addressed issues I was wrestling with when I read it); Second, because Ward wrote it before Rethinking Christianity and thus in the latter he refers back to his earlier book.

If you search the archives on my blog you can probably find the posts where I discussed both books.

Let me know if you get to read them and if so, what you think!

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/

[Progo35]

The rape and slavery stuff is strictly in the Old Testament.

[Progo35]

OOPS! I meant to say that the condoning of RAPE was only in the old testament....what I meant in terms of slavery in the context of the old testament is that there were harsher examples of slavery than in the NT

[keltic63]

OOPS! I meant to say that the condoning of RAPE was only in the old testament....what I meant in terms of slavery in the context of the old testament is that there were harsher examples of slavery than in the NT

the NT talks about how we should treat our slaves, not that slavery is wrong. The idea that slavery is wrong flows from the teachings of Jesus, that whole "love thy neighbor" thing. ;)

[u-dog]

the NT talks about how we should treat our slaves, not that slavery is wrong. The idea that slavery is wrong flows from the teachings of Jesus, that whole "love thy neighbor" thing. ;)

more than that it flows from the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus has already paid the ultimate price for my being... how can someone else outbid him on the auction block?