[Vision2020] Wrong About the Bible: Slavery

[Tony]

Ralph, we are evidently discussing a different posting from Andreas.  The 
one I thought well reasoned said that a volume as redacted, re-written, 
compiled over so many tears by so many authors as the Bible, could not 
logically be expected in all cases, to be rigidly consistent.  Slavery 
aside, that observation is reasonable and cogent.

I personally find the Bible's position on slavery to be a very boring 
subject for discussion, and never entered the debate.  I choose now to 
continue in that mode and stay on task.  The Bible is inconsistent and 
somewhat less than completely reliable for the reasons given above.  Period.

If you wish to browbeat someone over some specific aspect of Bible teaching, 
please avail yourself of someone else, I have a life.

Best,  -T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralph Nielsen" <nielsen at uidaho.edu>
To: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Wrong About the Bible: Slavery


> You're the one who is dodging, Tony. Just go back and read what I  said. I 
> have never claimed the Bible was consistent from cover to  cover. That is 
> what dishonest preachers claim. That is why Xians like  to pick out 
> particular verses or stories to prove their pet  prejudices. That is why 
> Doug Wilson and his friends want to have  homosexuals killed by the 
> government. That is why the majority of  Idahoans don't want same-sex 
> couples to have the same rights as other  married people. That is why 
> millions of Americans want to have  creationism and so-called intelligent 
> design taught in public  schools. And so on...
>
> But the Bible is consistent on at least one subject: nowhere does it 
> condemn slavery. That is precisely why Andreas jumped on me.
>
> As for translations into English, they are usually made from Hebrew  and 
> Greek texts, not from previous translations thereof. But entire  books 
> have been written on this subject.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 3, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Tony wrote:
>
>> Boy Ralph, and I thought I was agile.  Andreas was quite clear that  he 
>> did not think it likely that a volume with so many authors,  compiled 
>> over so many years, redacted and translated several times,  could 
>> reasonably be expected to be consistent from cover to cover.   It is 
>> precisely this character of the Bible which has you so  frequently in a 
>> twist as you offer conflicting passages to  Christians in an effort to 
>> undermine what they claim to find  therein.  Neither Andreas nor I have 
>> made any statements as to the  Bible's position on slavery.  If that is 
>> your focus at this moment,  please direct your question to the 
>> appropriate person.
>>
>> Best,  -T
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Nielsen"  <nielsen at uidaho.edu>
>> To: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Cc: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>; "Tony Simpson" 
>> <tonytime at clearwire.net>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:42 AM
>> Subject: Wrong About the Bible: Slavery
>>
>>
>>> Tony, just what is it that Andreas said about me that you so 
>>> "wholeheartedly and enthusiastically" agree with? I showed that  slavery 
>>> is approved of throughout the entire Bible and he accuses  me of 
>>> "trashing the Bible." I didn't call him names but simply   challenged 
>>> him to prove me wrong. And I throw the same challenge  at  you, Tony. I 
>>> would like to keep this thread as a scholarly  discussion, not a barroom 
>>> fight.
>>>
>>> If you know of any book, chapter or verse in anybody's Bible that
>>> condemns slavery, I would like to hear about it.
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> Tony tonytime at clearwire.net
>>>
>>> Sat Feb 3 08:45:15 PST 2007
>>>
>>> Having argued with Andreas on so many occasions, it gives me an  odd 
>>> pause to
>>> find myself in wholehearted and enthusiastic agreement with him.   But 
>>> after
>>> reading his retort to Ralph regarding the Bible, all I could think  was,
>>> YEAH!  What he said!
>>>
>>> OK Ralph, your turn.
>>>
>>> -T
>>>
>>> Andreas --
>>>
>>> I don't think you're being fair here. I know perfectly well that the
>>> Bible is not a unitary text--whichever Bible you wish to discuss:
>>> Jewish (both Torah and Tanakh), Catholic, or Protestant. It is people
>>> like Wilson who make that claim.
>>>
>>> If you know of any book, chapter or verse in anybody's Bible that
>>> condemns slavery, I would like to hear about it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>> Ralph --
>>> >
>>> > You're making the same counterfactual assumption to trash the Bible
>>> > that Doug does to support it: that the Bible is itself a unitary
>>> text.
>>> > The argument that dozens of authors, recorders of stories, and
>>> > redactors had the same intentions when writing over thousands of
>>> years
>>> > is a non-starter; the argument that the Bible is complete and
>>> > infallable is extrabiblical. Saying that the Bible 'supports' or
>>> 'does
>>> > not support' something is nonsense: no book that contians both the
>>> > axioms 'eye for an eye' and 'turn the other cheek' can be
>>> considered
>>> > to have any internal textual unity.
>>> >
>>> > There are threads within the Bible that condone slavery (though not
>>> > the form of intergenerational racial slavery we had in the United
>>> > States), threads that are suspicious of it, and threads that
>>> condemn
>>> > it. Contra Doug Wilson, the abolitionist movement was, at its
>>> core, a
>>> > Christian movement -- and it found its textual support, as all
>>> > Christian movements do, in the Bible.
>>> >
>>> > -- ACS
>>> >
>>
>>
>
>