Old Testament Literalists

[Bullseyed]

Since I have come to find that there are more than a few Biblical literalists on this board, I would like to know their opinions on the passage found in Leviticus 25:44-46, which is seen below:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

[Caroline]

hey bud. The old testament is history.

[Bullseyed]

hey bud. The old testament is history.

I see it as a historical reference, many others see it differently. Trying to get their opinions on it. Those who believe the Bible is an impeccable reference that contains no factual or moral inaccuracies are the ones I am looking for. I'd like to see how they themselves justify passages like the one above, since they do not fit in with the rest of their world view. Anyone who took the literal translation in the 6 days or 6000 years thread should have some way to justify this passage and others like it, or else the logic for their positions in that thread will have been unquestionably proven false.

[Jack Hectormann]

Hello Bullseyed,
Fishing, er ? And just look what you've pulled in. Me. Well cheer up, no doubt bigger fish are coming. Meanwhile, I'll give it my best shot.

Comments on the link I'm fixing to give you:
The name of the article is: Defending the Biblical Position On Slavery.
Written by Kyle Butt.

*The arguments contained in this link are probably gonna be my best arguments, I'll drag 'em up one by one, expand 'em some, and present them to you for your consideration.

*This a very well written article, not a word of rant anywhere in it, the man did an excellent job with his subject. Even if he doesn't succeed at modifying your position a bit, I think you'll agree he put some hard effort into this piece and that its well thought out and deserves a very careful read.

*I'm gonna ask you for a favor. Seriously, a favor. You have a sense of fairness. (I've read a good bit of your stuff) Spend some time with this article. Pretend, while you're SLOWLY and CAREFULLY reading it, pretend that you want to be convinced. Instead of looking for flaws in the article, look for its strengths and it's reasonable arguments. Make a sincere effort to mentally enter into the unfolding and developing case/arguments he presents. I said that because its just human nature to start looking at the weaknesses and flaws in an article first and ignore the strengths. Look at the flaws later, now just look at the strengths, will ya ?

*Everybody absorbs at their own speed of course, but I'd venture to say this is at least a 1½ hour read/study article, possibly longer if you really come to grips with the principles, arguments, and texts.

*See what you think.
Apologetics Press - Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery

[SuddenImpact]

Jack's right, the biblical version of slavery was a punishment - it wasn't like American slavery. Though it did include innocent members of "heathen" nations.

[Jack Hectormann]

Jack's right, the biblical version of slavery was a punishment - it wasn't like American slavery.

[Bullseyed]

Jack's right, the biblical version of slavery was a punishment - it wasn't like American slavery. Though it did include innocent members of "heathen" nations.

Yes and no. Slavery was slavery. At that time, it was believed that if you ended up in slavery, it was because you had neglected God, your god or gods and as a result, your deity allowed to you be taken captive by your oppressors as punishment. The same can be said of all slavery. At the time of American slavery, the common belief was that black people were descendants of Cain and the color of their skin was the mark of Cain. Since they had turned their back on God, it was permissible to purchase these people as slaves.

Both what I said and what you said, and actually, what the article says, proves my point. There are parts of the Bible that were highly culturalized, and served a specific purpose at a specific time and may no longer be relevant.

From Jack's article:

In Matthew 19:3-10, the Pharisees came to Jesus, attempting to trap Him with questions about the Old Law. They asked: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus informed them that divorce was not in God’s plan from the beginning. Thinking they had trapped Him, they inquired: “Why, then, did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away?” If it was in the Old Law, they suggested, then it must be God’s ideal will. But Jesus’ answer quickly stopped that line of thinking. He responded:

Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.

Jesus’ point was crystal clear—some things permitted in the Old Testament did not necessarily represent the ideal. Due to the hardness of ancient Israel’s heart, God tolerated (and regulated) some things under the Old Law that He did not endorse. As He did so, however, He progressively revealed His divine will to mankind, clarifying that will more fully through Christ.

(Bold their emphasis, underlining my emphasis)


My point here is that the Bible is a living document that can mean different things to different people and at many times parts of the Bible served a purpose that is no longer necessary due to the progression of society and mankind as a whole. For this reason, taking a strict, literal view of the Bible appears dishonest and religiously shallow.


A more modern example comes from the lending of money. In early Christianity some passages were interpreted literally regarding how followers of Christ were to treat others. One of the main points that arose was that when lending money, Christians were not allowed to charge interest. Since Jewish people were not bound by this limitation, the Jews ended up with control of the entire banking industry. Christians looked down upon them as 'money grubbers' because they charged interest instead of giving money freely. They still have that reputation today in some parts of society, but Christians as a whole generally are allowed to make money off of others. (Some obscure orthodox sects probably still practice the old ways).



Jack, you were kind of right though, I am fishing. I'm not arguing for something as much as I am arguing against something, and I really want someone to be able to give me a run for my money on it. I want to set this topic for a debate, but I am not the one to take the affirmative position on it. I want someone else to take the affirmative side, so that I may take the negative side, because that is the side I personally believe in. I know there are people here and elsewhere who hold the opposing view of mine, and I want to request that they take time to form their position and present their case. At the same time, I don't know if there is anyone here or elsewhere who will be able to. I think the literalists have a position that is very hard to defend, which is why people who hold that position generally do not provide evidence for their claims, but rather speak with self proclaimed superiority on the topic. If people are going to try that approach, I will tear them down for it. This is a debate. Logic and rhetoric rule the day.

I am asking to take the negative position rather than an affirmative one because my point is relatively amorphous. I'm not saying no parts of the Bible can be taken literally, some can and should be, but those parts vary based on the time period. Some parts of the Bible should be taken metaphorically. Again, which parts fall under this case vary based on the people involved and the time period. Some parts of the Bible should be taken historically. These parts of the Bible seem to be the hardest for people to deal with. Like the passage I quoted in the OP, some things we consider immoral today were accepted in the past. The only way to make that case as an affirmative would be to go line by line through the entire Bible and classify each verse. Obviously, that would not be the most interesting or enlightening way to discuss these issues.

Why is this important to me? Why can I not allow strict literalists to continue off in their little corner? First, because of their tendency to designate themselves as authority, which I believe to be misguided. My second reason is much more philosophical. God placed passages like the original post cited so that we can reflect on how far we have come in our faith, reflect on how much progress we have made since people once held an intellectually inferior mindset. We are supposed to grow in Christ, because that which does not grow does not bear fruit. We have become a better people, a people closer to the kingdom because of our moral, scientific, and historical growth. And yet, some people seem to want to discredit God's wisdom. They want to take a literal view of every passage in the Bible and hurl insults at those who do not agree with them. I do not understand those people, but I am willing to spar with them over it, that I may defend the wisdom and honor of God. I want to help people be able to view the Bible in such a way that their faith may be a living, growing thing instead of something written on the stone of their hearts, to be memorized.

The law of the Old Testament was written in stone, Jesus came to shatter that stone and place a new law, written in flesh, written in love. And Jack, I think that is something you can and do respect.

[SuddenImpact]

Yes and no. Slavery was slavery. At that time, it was believed that if you ended up in slavery, it was because you had neglected God, your god or gods and as a result, your deity allowed to you be taken captive by your oppressors as punishment. The same can be said of all slavery. At the time of American slavery, the common belief was that black people were descendants of Cain and the color of their skin was the mark of Cain. Since they had turned their back on God, it was permissible to purchase these people as slaves.

Both what I said and what you said, and actually, what the article says, proves my point. There are parts of the Bible that were highly culturalized, and served a specific purpose at a specific time and may no longer be relevant.

From Jack's article:


(Bold their emphasis, underlining my emphasis)


My point here is that the Bible is a living document that can mean different things to different people and at many times parts of the Bible served a purpose that is no longer necessary due to the progression of society and mankind as a whole. For this reason, taking a strict, literal view of the Bible appears dishonest and religiously shallow.


A more modern example comes from the lending of money. In early Christianity some passages were interpreted literally regarding how followers of Christ were to treat others. One of the main points that arose was that when lending money, Christians were not allowed to charge interest. Since Jewish people were not bound by this limitation, the Jews ended up with control of the entire banking industry. Christians looked down upon them as 'money grubbers' because they charged interest instead of giving money freely. They still have that reputation today in some parts of society, but Christians as a whole generally are allowed to make money off of others. (Some obscure orthodox sects probably still practice the old ways).



Jack, you were kind of right though, I am fishing. I'm not arguing for something as much as I am arguing against something, and I really want someone to be able to give me a run for my money on it. I want to set this topic for a debate, but I am not the one to take the affirmative position on it. I want someone else to take the affirmative side, so that I may take the negative side, because that is the side I personally believe in. I know there are people here and elsewhere who hold the opposing view of mine, and I want to request that they take time to form their position and present their case. At the same time, I don't know if there is anyone here or elsewhere who will be able to. I think the literalists have a position that is very hard to defend, which is why people who hold that position generally do not provide evidence for their claims, but rather speak with self proclaimed superiority on the topic. If people are going to try that approach, I will tear them down for it. This is a debate. Logic and rhetoric rule the day.

I am asking to take the negative position rather than an affirmative one because my point is relatively amorphous. I'm not saying no parts of the Bible can be taken literally, some can and should be, but those parts vary based on the time period. Some parts of the Bible should be taken metaphorically. Again, which parts fall under this case vary based on the people involved and the time period. Some parts of the Bible should be taken historically. These parts of the Bible seem to be the hardest for people to deal with. Like the passage I quoted in the OP, some things we consider immoral today were accepted in the past. The only way to make that case as an affirmative would be to go line by line through the entire Bible and classify each verse. Obviously, that would not be the most interesting or enlightening way to discuss these issues.

Why is this important to me? Why can I not allow strict literalists to continue off in their little corner? First, because of their tendency to designate themselves as authority, which I believe to be misguided. My second reason is much more philosophical. God placed passages like the original post cited so that we can reflect on how far we have come in our faith, reflect on how much progress we have made since people once held an intellectually inferior mindset. We are supposed to grow in Christ, because that which does not grow does not bear fruit. We have become a better people, a people closer to the kingdom because of our moral, scientific, and historical growth. And yet, some people seem to want to discredit God's wisdom. They want to take a literal view of every passage in the Bible and hurl insults at those who do not agree with them. I do not understand those people, but I am willing to spar with them over it, that I may defend the wisdom and honor of God. I want to help people be able to view the Bible in such a way that their faith may be a living, growing thing instead of something written on the stone of their hearts, to be memorized.

The law of the Old Testament was written in stone, Jesus came to shatter that stone and place a new law, written in flesh, written in love. And Jack, I think that is something you can and do respect.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here (except I'm a Jew).

[CWolf]

I'm not arguing for something as much as I am arguing against something, and I really want someone to be able to give me a run for my money on it. I want to set this topic for a debate, but I am not the one to take the affirmative position on it. I want someone else to take the affirmative side, so that I may take the negative side,

I can give you a really simple answer, if that's all you want.
All pagan people are evil and deserve whatever you dish out on them.
God says it's fine to murder small children and rape the girls, provided they have non-believing parents.
Then God will proceed to do far worse to all them after that, so it's really no problem.

You'll have a hard time finding Jesus suggesting any of this, but then again Jesus was a very bad Jew. Bad enough they needed to kill him to keep him quiet. He simply refused to follow any of the ridiculous rules layed out.

However dogmatics still control the church. The irony of Jesus being killed for refusing to adhere to religious dogmas, and then continuing to insist upon bizzare rules seems lost on most Chrisitians.

[Jack Hectormann]

Bullseyed,
Thanks for reading the article and considering it.

I was thinking this morning that I'm really not the one you will enjoy arguing this issue with and for reasons you know. I try to be honest with people and fly my flag up high. I read your last post very carefully and we both know I'm not the fish you need here.

You already know why generally, but I'll explain further. For me Biblical Inerrancy is a major First Principle. That doctrine is so vital and so important to me that I view it as I would any other major Christian doctrine, that is I am not open to any "evidence" to the contrary. For me, its EXACTLY like the orthodox doctrines of the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus, as well as theism itself. I'm already settled on all that just as I am with the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. I didn't waste time reading Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens, and I wouldn't waste my time reading arguments against, say, the bodily ressurection of the Lord Jesus.

Now the above is NOT an argument for you to rebut, I'm ONLY explaining to you why I'm not the fish you wish to argue with on this issue. Its pointless to argue with a man who will boldly tell you up front that he has a totaly closed mind, by a decision of his will, against any evidence to the contrary against his position, and that he will merely dismiss all "logic" and "evidence" as inconclusive.

Please understand that I was born and raised a Protestant and that I have decades under my belt in the study of Protestant Biblical doctrines, and that the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is considered in my circles, and by me, a MAJOR and VITAL Biblical teaching. It would be the same as if you were asked to have an open mind to consider evidence against a Catholic Biblical doctrine that you truly believe is major and vital.

We have an irreconcilable and contradictory First Principle here on this issue. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

And please understand that I do not take the above position to be obstinate or out of some decision to embrace ignorance as a virture. I hold the position out of true heart felt conviction.

Now for some miscellaneous chatty points just for the fun of it:
* I didn't intend for you to understand I was asking you to take the affirmative side of this issue in the debate. I meant take the affirmative side ONLY while you were reading the article so you could concentrate on its strengths while you were reading it.

*There are a large number of Protestant Biblical scholars (and Catholics too) that hold firmly to Biblical Inerrancy while avoiding the excesses you argue against.

*A word on your concern expressed with your phrases, "...self proclaimed superiority on the topic..." and "...strict literalists... their tendency to designate themselves as authority..."

>Biblical Inerrancy is held by many of the best and brightest within Christendom in the same way and with the same tones and attitude as all the other doctrines they hold vital. I try to follow their example when presenting any/all evidences to a fellow Christian. What that means in relation to your concerns is that we Protestants (the sensible kind anyway) fully understand that no one of us has the authority to proclaim our interpretation of any Biblical text or Biblical doctrine as being the final authorative interpretation springing out of or based upon our exegetical skills, knowledge and wisdom.

In other words, we hold our positions with some modesty and avoid tones of "superiority" and personal "authority." One can still be firm and modest at the same time. Many are and many are not, we're all on a learning journey and some of us are a little behind the rest of the class, and sometimes slip and make mistakes in the area of, shall we say, interpretative modesty.

I don't know if I'm making this clear. Let me give you a specific example. If I wished to present to you my interpretation of, say, Ephesians 1:3-14 I would do so with some modesty and humility. You can see, by merely glancing through it, that it contains many highly controversial assertions. I am, as I have said before, a Calvinist and I would interpret this text plus dozens of others like it from a Calvinistic point of view.

As a Catholic you're probably not going to agree with my interpretations, most Catholics are Arminians and therefore not Calvinists. But I can hold my positions without crossing over the line of your concerns about "superiority" and self-proclaimed "authority." As can you.

I feel we could talk all day and never insult each other, even though we have tons of stuff we would not agree on. Tons !

Ephesians 1:3-14
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession..."

*Of course, in heated debate both sides can easily come across to the other side as asserting a self-proclaimed superiority, even though their motives might not be that at all. In their true hearts they could be defending something dear to them and that may well not be their self-appointed personal authority/superiority, even though what they said might sound like strong evidence of it.

Bullseyed said:
My second reason is much more philosophical. God placed passages like the original post cited so that we can reflect on how far we have come in our faith, reflect on how much progress we have made since people once held an intellectually inferior mindset. We are supposed to grow in Christ, because that which does not grow does not bear fruit. We have become a better people, a people closer to the kingdom because of our moral, scientific, and historical growth. And yet, some people seem to want to discredit God's wisdom.

I understand the reasoning behind your thinking here. I don't agree with your conclusion on Biblical Inerrancy, but I think you have a good motive in your heart in what you're trying to do.

Bullseyed said:
They want to take a literal view of every passage in the Bible and hurl insults at those who do not agree with them. I do not understand those people, but I am willing to spar with them over it, that I may defend the wisdom and honor of God. I want to help people be able to view the Bible in such a way that their faith may be a living, growing thing instead of something written on the stone of their hearts, to be memorized.

I already commented on the insult thingy, and again I think your motives are good and believe you to be a sincere Christian. I just think you can achieve what you wish to achieve without giving up Biblical Inerrancy. (Btw, I don't know how old you are, but you have no way of knowing what books, evidences, texts, wisdoms etc that you will come across 5, 10, 15 years hence that might modify your present position a tad, at least it would seem that way unless (?) you classify a REJECTION of Biblical Inerrancy as a vital doctrine )

Bullseyed said:
The law of the Old Testament was written in stone, Jesus came to shatter that stone and place a new law, written in flesh, written in love. And Jack, I think that is something you can and do respect

You're right Bullseyed, I do respect that and very much so.

Cheers.

PS
Man, didn't mean to sit here, when I first started, and write all this stuff. Its 2:00 in the A.M. I think people that stay up till 2:00 in the morning writing this stuff need to see a psychiatrist.

Hope ya find that big fish to kick this stuff around with, one'll come along here sometime to be sure.