Is the bible a product of it's time and place?

[Tailor]

Is it more reasonable to assume the bible was made by man or made (or inspired) by God? Well, how would we know the difference?

If it was man made, I'd expect the bible to clearly have the stamp of it's time and place of origin. Most of the scientic knowledge would be as inaccurate as most other people of that time. The morality of the book would be of it's time too. Naturally, it might be a progression from previous morality, but it's moral teachings would be exceeded by later moral thought.

If it was God made, well the scientific knowledge would be spot on, exposing knowledge that would revolutionize medicine, agriculture, sanitation, for God would want his people to live, right. Certainly there would be no inaccurate information there, for that would cast doubt on God's total message. Lastly the morality would be incredibly advanced, perfect in fact. There would be moral teachings where centuries later, mankind was just coming to grips with how to live up to that morality. It would not just lecture on morality, but show concrete steps how people could actually attain these lofty goals. There would be no imoral divine commands in the bible, centuries would pass, and still there would be no beliefs we could find fault with.

What about if God just inspired the authors to write the bible? If he had to deal with human flaws and misinterpretations of God's message. Well, if God did that, the whole document is suspect, isn't it? We have to judge the text, to see what is moral, and we are the arbiter of what the bible "should" say. Even worse, how can an omnipotent God capable of creating the universe find it so hard to create a book? Why wouldn't the bible just show up in the hands of Moses or Jesus and be copied out for everyone?

You won't find it surprising that the bible looks like a book marked by its time and place to me. The knowlege of how the world works is hokey and inaccurate. Disease caused by demons, not germs?

The morality is actually worse than some previous societies, both the Greek philosophers and Confucius having very moral insights previous to the New Testsment. Where is the biblical condemnation of slavery? Instead we have codification of how to morally keep slaves. Here I'm referring to the ownership of non-Jews described in Leviticus 25:45-46, not the bondsman like arrangement between Jews described earlier in Leviticus 25.

I'd love to hear and discuss what would lead people to conclude this was a divine creation.

[Wootah]

I read it almost daily. Heck this site makes me read it more than I want to. I find applications for my life nearly every time.

What is a book that you are certain is a product of just it's time and place and then we can compare?

How can we get beyond the bickering of I say it is moral and you say it isn't? You talk about slavery and it makes me think you have a lot to learn from the Bible. How can I convey it to you?

Slavery is universal. Jesus says that his yoke is lightest. Can't you see that slavery is universal?

The Bible is still ahead of its time.

[Tailor]

You asked a good question, how would we know, or what could we compare it to. I'd compare it to other writings and philosophies found at that time. Shouldn't we also consider what we'd expect to have in it, if it was divinely inspired? Wouldn't the parts that encourage or justify unethical behavior would be a dead give away. This is why I give the example of slavery, it is so troublingly flawed that we can't help but reject it now. Let me give you the passage as a reminder:

Leviticus 25:44-46

"44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."

This again is very different from the indentured servitude that Jews were restricted to amongst themselves outlined in Leviticus 25:39-43.

But "slavery is a universal", you say? It certainly was common place at the time and that's my point. Slavery was common, and codifying it was possibly a mild moral improvement, but by codifying this rule as moral behavior (if one follows the prescribed bounds) it enshrined slavery as morally acceptable. Today every country on earth has made slavery illegal, while their still are enslaved people, societies throughout the world view it as morally reprehensible.

Is this the only immoral thing in the bible? Far from it. We have passages that offer death for gay people, witches, and people making garments blended of two fabrics, but I wanted a clear example that almost anyone could agree was immoral. If you can explain how this codification of slavery is not immoral, I'd love to hear it.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by Tailor]

So you cite a rule that limits where slaves can come from... that implies a limit to slavery right there.

Can you come up with more counter examples? Assuming you bring a broad cultural and biblical understanding surely there are other verses that come to mind.

The Bible also says to take care of the widow and the orphan and the stranger. That is way ahead of its time. It had a 7 year cycle of debt forgiveness. Ex 21 says a hebrew slave has to go free after 7 years.
Ex 21 also says the law applies to slaves.

I think we have a cultural aversion to the word slavery that isn't justified by the way we live. I imagine if a person from the ancient world were here today they would see many things as slavery that we don't. My fear is that in order to appear good we revile a word while ignoring the reality.

[Tailor]

[Replying to Wootah]

In saying "where" slaves could be taken, they were not limiting slavery, they were controlling WHO was enslaved. This is in anything another sign of the moral failings of the bible, it creates different morals for in groups and out groups. It says, treat your fellow Jews like this, and discribes something that, while still an abomination by today's standards; was much better than the treatment of non-Jewish slaves.

Now you mentioned Exodus 21, so here's a selection from there:

Exodus 25:12; 20-21

Laws concerning Acts of Violence
"12 He that smiteth a man,
so that he die, shall be surely put
to death...
...
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Did you notice how killing -> surely put to death, but killing a "servant" -> punished (non-specific) and with the caveat unless they don't die in the next few days.

Or how about Exodus 21:26-27?

"Laws concerning Responsibility of Owners
26 ¶ And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.


27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Compare that with Exodus 21:24-25:

"24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, Lev. 24.19, 20 · Deut. 19.21 · Mt. 5.38 hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

So put out a free persons eye, lose your own eye, put out your slave's eye, just let him go free. Can you see that these non-Jewish slaves were chattle? They could be owned forever, given as an inheritance, and beaten as long as they weren't maimed or immediately killed. This is not mere semantics, owning someone for life, beating them, passing them on to your children, this IS slavery. Doing these things is inexcusable no matter what you call it.

As for other examples, dozens, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this first.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah]

In saying "where" slaves could be taken, they were not limiting slavery, they were controlling WHO was enslaved. This is in anything another sign of the moral failings of the bible, it creates different morals for in groups and out groups. It says, treat your fellow Jews like this, and discribes something that, while still an abomination by today's standards; was much better than the treatment of non-Jewish slaves.

It simply wasn't slavery as you think on a plantation. My understanding is it was a far superior life to say a factory worker in China. If only we set those standards today.

Now you mentioned Exodus 21, so here's a selection from there:

Exodus 25:12; 20-21

Laws concerning Acts of Violence
"12 He that smiteth a man,
so that he die, shall be surely put
to death...
...
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Did you notice how killing -> surely put to death, but killing a "servant" -> punished (non-specific) and with the caveat unless they don't die in the next few days.

Those two laws work together. The law says that if you kill even a slave you get killed. One would be careful before hitting a slave back then.

Or how about Exodus 21:26-27?

"Laws concerning Responsibility of Owners
26 ¶ And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.


27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Who gets let go? The servant.

Compare that with Exodus 21:24-25:

"24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, Lev. 24.19, 20 · Deut. 19.21 · Mt. 5.38 hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

So put out a free persons eye, lose your own eye, put out your slave's eye, just let him go free.

Both laws would be applied.

Can you see that these non-Jewish slaves were chattle? They could be owned forever, given as an inheritance, and beaten as long as they weren't maimed or immediately killed. This is not mere semantics, owning someone for life, beating them, passing them on to your children, this IS slavery. Doing these things is inexcusable no matter what you call it.
As for other examples, dozens, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this first.

You may have too many advantages. Many more today would love to live under the conditions set out in the Bible.

It's actually so much worse today for so many.

[Tailor]

So, would you want to live like the slaves described in the bible? Where you can be beaten, but master has to make sure not to kill you (again right away, otherwise he clearly goes unpunished), where you were a piece of property.

Well, you asked what else clearly marks the bible as not morally above it's time: killing babies and children. Let me be clear, I mean little people that have been born, not fetuses. Here's a few examples of how it's ok for God, or God's chosen working under his command to kill children:

Abraham and Isaac Genesis 22. Now I can see you'll say, "God was only testing Abraham. The point is Abraham didn't know that. God is testing Abraham to see if he's so "good" that he'll offer up his son smoked and crispy. So if you saw your neighbor and his son getting ready for a camping trip, and you ask the dad, "where are you going?" He pulls you aside and says,"actually I'm going to the mountains where I'm going to slit little Tommy's throat, then burn him on the camp fire." Seeing your alarmed face he adds, "Don't worry, God told me to do it."
Your next step would be what? Wish him luck? Hope there's a goat wandering by the campsite? Pray for guidance? I hope not, I'm going to call the cops at the very least.

Every so often, parents today murder their children, and say they heard the voice of God telling them to do it. While they are always written off as crazies, I wonder, how are people to know when the voice of God is in there head, and when their head is chemically unbalanced?

Today when we hear someone is going to kill innocent people in the name of God, especially children, we are moral enough to stop them. We would tell people that if you think God wants you to hurt your children, check yourself in at the mental health ward.

Also, in case we think the biblical story always has God stopping the sacrifice of children, remember that in Judges 11 God allows Jeptha to sacrifice his daughter so that he can succeed in battle. No last minute save there.

Then there's the killing of other people's babies and children. God was happy to kill the first born children of Egypt (Exodus 11). Why were they killed, for the sins of their Pharoh. Nowadays we don't execute children for the crimes of their parents. Now you may say children get killed in wars or drone strikes. While I think those are morally wrong, in the bible story the children are targeted specifically for death, not the accidental by-product of war.

God is happy to order the death of children, as he does in 1 Samuel 15:
"3 Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (Emphasis mine)

There are many other cases of children being killed in the bible, either by God's actions, by God's orders, or by the actions of God's chosen men, but few so specific that we know they were young enough to be suckling still. Today this would be considered both a war crime for killing children and genocide for trying to systematically kill everyone in the same tribe.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 7 by Tailor]

The issue isn't about what I want. No one wants to be a slave. But if I had to be a slave this would be a good system.