- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,223
- 9,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
So......let me get this straight. You think that a 'servant' was always and only a Jewish person, and a 'slave' was always a foreigner? Is this what you're inferring? I have to ask because how you've done the exegesis on this and made the jump assumption that you've made doesn't seem to "just follow," IMO. Maybe you're right (or maybe you're not), but even if you are, what I'm seeing in your form of exegesis is a woodenly rigid interpretive process wherein it seems that you think the legal thought of Israelites only and irrevocably used single verses WITHOUT considering how connotations from any of the other many laws in the O.T. might BLEED OVER into the final act of jurisprudence that the judges of Israel would have administered in their courts.I'm not sure if you read my last several responses, or if maybe you are misunderstanding my responses, or other? I feel as though I stated the exact same thing many times now. But then, for some reason, receive answers which do not address my replies? So let me re-iterate it again one more time, hopefully with crystal clear clarity.
Exodus 21:1-11 speaks of 'Hebrew servants'. Okay, great. If a Jew 'opts' to reach an agreement to be as such for 6-7 years, fine... (even though there is a life-time loop hole clause attached for providing the servant with a family).
Exodus 21:12-36, however, no longer speaks about such a topic, and changes the subject, (i.e.) 'Personal Injuries', as they pertain to general 'persons', 'parents', 'slaves', 'pregnant women', and 'bulls'.
So to recap... Exodus 21:1-11 speaks of 'Hebrew servants', not 'slaves' (they are different). It is not until Exodus 21:20, and beyond, where the Bible speaks about 'slaves' in this chapter.
There are clearly differing rules, pertaining to clearly differing scenarios, between 'Jewish servants' and 'slaves'.
Well, that's just too bad if my fellow Americans are that in need of remedial training. And I can say this because............I was in need of serious remedial study when I first became a Christian, too, but through time I became open to the idea that the world is complex and that the Bible requires more study to understand than what my "common man" notions had led me to initially believe those many years ago. Yes, I've gotten frustrated over the years with trying to 'read' the Bible! Who doesn't? But the fact is, it is what it is.Your response makes little sense... The vast majority of American Bible readers are not fluent in Aramaic or Greek, and would not even know to study accordingly.
No, they do approximate jobs as best that various educated people can do. But............the fact remains that obviously language, even the English language, changes through time, so the meanings or articulations that we thought had been used to interpret/interpolate/translate in the past need to be edited and modified for improvement, or for easier reading, or whatever. Thus, we have a kagilleon different English 'versions' all competing in the marketplace of English business. And that's the way it is. Sorry Charlie!So you honestly think all American translators are doing a poor job at appropriate translation, and/or are deliberately misleading English speakers?
No, you're not so much "doing it wrong" as much as you are doing it incompletely. (Of course, not one of us can ever REALLY do it completely since we're stuck in singular human bodies which are limited by human cognizance and temporality (by which I mean we don't know it all AND we can't travel through time to verify the full past like we'd like to do).You honestly think that because I stop at an English translated version, I'm doing it wrong?
Of course they "aspire" to that, but the reality of humanity and human society prevents that outcome from ever happening. (Shucks darn it! God should have made this a perfect world with perfect people with perfect cognition with the perfect environment..................................ad infinitum!) Well, boo HOO!Furthermore, many American translations, I would only assume, aspired to reach the best translation possible (i.e.) NIV, KJV, etc....
Yep. You hit the nail on the head. I still am asking you. [My oh my, isn't doing hermeneutical investigation great?!]And yet, you are still asking me to come up with my justification, as to why the Bible actually references non-Jewish slaves as being kept for life, referred to non-Jewish slaves as property for life, and beating them just short of death in two days for life? I'm truly vexed?
I'm not switching anything. You're the one who is making the claim that 'such and such' a passage can only refer to and imply this or that about servant and slaves. You are making a positive claim. I have a different positive claim. So, the burden is on BOTH of us, which is why I'm haggling with you about it all, most particularly since you seem to want to utterly refuse to realize that hermeneutics is all about studying the structures and acts of application that are involved in our very own interpretive processes. But, you seem to want to reduce things down and believe .... "eh, it's simple. NO need for all that." And I disagree. It's complex and we all have some work to do. I mean, do you want me to choose a book on hermeneutics that we can read and discuss together? Are you up for that? Or is that asking too much?You appear to be attempting to switch the burden of proof. I'm afraid the burden of proof actually rests entirely upon you. I read the Bible verses as axiomatic. They appear very clear and straight forward.
Uh. yeah. So what. That slave needs to convert in order to obtain "freedom in God and society." Duh!!! This kind of goes without saying if we consider the theology and the God being depicted in the Bible. If we don't pay the quarter, we don't get the bubble-gum, although we might if there's some some in 'overstock' that doesn't get sold directly.When one reads such verses, they read as follows:
- If you are not a Jew, one is condoned to be a life time slave
What? You mean this doesn't comport with our modern day notions about pluralism and democracy? That God isn't going to set up economic and societal systems that we hold as sacrosanct today in "just that way?" .....yeah. That's about the short of it. [Ok. Everyone please get out your Ethics textbook and let's turn together to page ..................]
the above applies.- If you are not a Jew, one is condoned to be property for life
...well, it's likely that a slave (...can we say nasty Canaanite?) who refuses to convert will likely be continually at odds with the worldview and social patterns of the Israelite master. Go figure! That's right. The Bible isn't a pluralistic democracy. But it does allow one to convert to the "narrow way," "...for the wide way leads to death."- If you are not a Jew, one can be beaten for life.
yep. Only the 'meek' shall inherit the earth. (Maybe read the last couple of chapters in the book of Revelation to get an idea as to what this is going to mean in the end....)- If you are not a Jew, one can be inherited as property
.................no, it would be erroneous to say that all English translations in all necessity convey identical meanings in all ways. No, there are differences, which is why so many Christians squabble about who has the 'best' version of the Bible.Please demonstrate my mistake, and how you objectively know this? So ultimately, I choose to adhere to the verses in the Bible themselves, and choose to adhere to the sought-after translated versions in which all English versions use. And yes, each translation uses some differing words for these verses. However, they ALL convey the very same over all message, in regards to slavery, property, beating, and for life.
Last edited:
Upvote
0