[crazy_geek]

> And the Bible never speaks out against slavery.

Most people, when speaking about slavery, are only aware of American slavery. Slavery in ancient times was generally a very different thing.

But yes, it does speak about what was American style slavery, which involved effectively kidnapping and forced slavery:

Leviticus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession."

Reading just bits and pieces of the bible doesn't give you the proper context to interpret properly.

As for what you think an actual divine would look like, what a divine book looks like depends heavily on what God's purpose was in writing it, which is evidently different than what you would have it be. But in many people's estimation, it does put every human work to shame.

As for explaining things that a 1st-century scribe couldn't possibly know, ummm, the Hebrew scriptures originated somewhere around 1400 B.C. or earlier depending on how you wish to count.

[brianobush]

> Reading just bits and pieces of the bible doesn't give you the proper context to interpret properly.

Right, but if you read more you will be utterly confused and find conflicting views. Which is why most people only pick the parts that they agree with.

[crazy_geek]

I've run into what appear to be conflicting views, but after some study, I'm able to resolve them. Usually it's understanding things in their proper context. That is: it's by reading more and paying more attention.

[bwoj]

For most people that hew to the teachings of the book, understanding the proper context involves a religious authority telling them which parts of the book matter and which ones to ignore because they don't matter any more. I would like for a divinely inspired book of ageless wisdom to not be so subject to the whims of interpretation.

[bjmarte]

And how to you keep a book from being interpreted? I can barely utter a phrase without having to deal with my wife's misinterpretation.

[dalke]

I believe that is the point.

crazy_geek says apparent conflicting views in the Bible can be reconciled by sufficient study.

bwoj points out that there isn't a universal agreement of what the Bible says. (I'll add, compare the Catholic Church to Jehovah's Witnesses for an example of the differences.)

It would be easier to interpret the Bible if parts of it were labeled "the following is not meant to be read as an actual history." At the very least, this would reduce the number of people think there was a global flood, or think that the 1 million+ Jews were enslaved in Egypt then spent 40 years wandering in the desert.

There would still be misinterpretations, but they would only be of a religious nature, and not include the historical misinterpretations which, in the case of the Exodus, took over 2,000 years to correct.

[fraytormenta]

Everything is interpreted if it passes through a thinking brain. There is no point in trying to avoid interpretation, but it is good to aim for high quality in interpretation. In classic Christianity, good interpretation has to (1) satisfy and harmonize with the rest of the material in the Bible, (2) harmonize with the character and example of Christ, (3) carry some weight and adherence in the Church over many generations.

[bkev]

...how do you keep a book from being interpreted

You pose an interesting question - one you'd think a god would be able to answer, especially if that god supposedly created us. In fact, if he can't answer it, I would question whether he is a god.

[chroma]

I'm pretty sure that verse allows slavery. It forbids kidnapping and enslaving people, but if someone is born a slave, buying and selling them is fine. Fortunately, I don't have to be an expert on the Bible to argue this point. If the Bible's anti-slavery position was so clear, why did it take almost two millennia for theologians to figure that out?

Also, do you really endorse that verse? That is: Do you think we should institute the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping? If not, why not? "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death," is as explicit and unambiguous as it is possible to be.

[crazy_geek]

> Also, do you really endorse that verse? That is: Do you think we should institute the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping?

Let me turn it around: If someone stole you and sold you, or stole your child and sold them for a slave, what do you think the penalty should be? Justify your answer.

[dalke]

Not death. I'll be fine with whatever the Swedish court system decides.

It is not the role of the victim to determine the punishment. That would make a mockery of the rule of law.

Consider the Amish, who "believe that bringing litigation in a court of law violates their understanding of nonresistance. They view litigation as a coercive means and thus counter to their beliefs against using violence." http://amishamerica.com/why-dont-amish-sue/

Those of other faiths may have similar reasons for not punishing a criminal, like a Buddhist who has made a vow to not to harm others.

Still others believe in an eye-for-an-eye, even if Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and may want a harsher than average punishment.

And of course there are people with no kin who can make that judgement about the punishment due, should they be murdered.

In the court system you envision, you'll end up encouraging people to attack Buddhists, Amish, etc., knowing that they'll be treated more gently than usual give the refusal of their victims to pass any judgement.

To add to that, most child kidnapping by far is done by family members. I do not think that state-mandated death of one of the parents is a reasonable response if that parent should kidnap the child from the other parent.

Yet that seems to be what the Bible verse says is appropriate.

Now that the turned-around question is answered, perhaps you'll care to answer chroma's original question? That being:

"Do you think we should institute the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping? If not, why not? "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death," is as explicit and unambiguous as it is possible to be.""

[meows]

I think your discussion plays exactly into what the thread author was thinking. That the bible is a collection of books bound to their time, but whatever the thread author expected, whether the bible was a collection guided by divine power, or directly authored by divine power, it reeks of severely bounded humanity, it reeks of minds locked in their time.

I think people wanted timelessness. Transcendence. Even something that is not perfectly transcendent and timeless, like an artifact of space travel technology would strike the world into awe, the kind of awe that technologically primitive cultures must feel when they bump by the edge of an severely alien human flying on a helicopter -- a suggestion of an ocean beyond your faculties. A feeling of a turtle in a well.