No, this isn't about "scholarship." That word represents your own high opinion of your interpretation of biblical text
Excuse me, but screw your infantile “wounded debater” comment, sir! It
IS about scholarship. Wherever biblical texts are concerned it’s
always about scholarship. Why is it about scholarship? Because (if you’d bothered to actually read what I wrote) we’re dealing with texts that 1) come to us out of a different culture, 2) come to us from ancient times, 3) are heavily edited and redacted, 4) are written in ancient languages that no one uses anymore, 5) contain several different types of literature, 6) were intended for a completely different audience, other than us, 7) have several different theological perspectives, 8) etc. Those are some pretty heavy-hitting hindrances to casual reading and easy understanding, and demand ...
scholarship, in order to be understood. The word “scholarship” refers to the process of sifting through these filters so that people like you can be able to even read the texts
in the first place — unless, of course, you’re fluent in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. The word “scholarship” refers to
responsible reading, as opposed to “picking up a bible and giving it a cursory glance.” The word “scholarship” refers to the tedious process of doing your work for you of actually exegeting the texts.
Furthermore, your perception of my opinion is YOUR problem; not mine. If my interpretation is perceived as “better” than yours, there are a couple of legitimate reasons for that. 1) I’ve spent a fair number of years, including years of graduate study in
how to exegete biblical texts, so, yeah, when I can do that (with high honors, thank you very much), it’s going to be reflected in the quality of the interpretation. That’s my
profession, so, of course I’m going to be good at it. If you don’t want a doctor’s opinion, go see a pharmacy clerk for your cancer; you won’t get much quality help. If you
do go to a doctor, don’t whine about his medical opinion carrying more weight than your own.
This is about persuasion. You can't persuade a non-believer like me just as you can't persuade the thousands of other Christian sects that you ought to be recognized as the final authority on the text
Intentionally provocative hyperbole. No one (except for you, that is) claims that I’m “the final authority on the text.” You’re just pi$$ed because I’m making sense and you can’t just dismiss the Bible as a total failure, based on some archaic ideas about human slavery that happen to be recorded therein, even though I’ve gone blue in the fingers typing out — not apologetics, but
explanations for why it’s there, why it doesn’t apply to us, how it can be dismissed for our context, what it meant for the writers/intended audience as opposed to us, etc.
ad nauseum. In response, rather than saying, “Gee, I wasn’t aware of that; thanks for the info!” You simply resort to a load of cheap
ad hominem attacks on my education and level of awareness of the subject at hand.
It’s not about persuasion, it’s about lending some sort of factual information to an “argument” that is woefully devoid of such information. Atheists generally applaud themselves for their handle on “the facts,” (which is usually the reason they give for eschewing religious belief in the first place). I’m giving you facts about the texts, themselves, about the cultures out of which they come, about the social habits of the intended audience, and now you’re whining about the presentation of those facts as “intellectual elitism?” Give me a break! This is as bad as the Trumplings who grumble about “fake news.”
When I read one hundred quotes from the Bible about slavery and none condemn it, I conclude that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery
Oh,
you conclude. You mean, the “you” who
hasn’t bothered to actually exegete the texts to find out
why the texts don’t condemn it? You’re happy to just “give it a glance” and spout a condemnation? And you expect us to regard
that uninformed opinion with any sort of factual authority?
My conclusion is further confirmed by historical facts. Other Christians, like Pope Pius IX in 1866 found nothing in divine law against the buying, selling and trading of slaves. Morally, he was wrong, but according to scripture, he was right
Pius (and others) were
wrong, as you say. However:
according to scripture, he was only “right” where bond-servants living in ancient Israel are concerned. According to scripture, he was wrong where 19th century American slavery was concerned,
because the Bible doesn’t address 19th century American slavery issues. It
does, however, address issues of oppression and dehumanization, which were hallmarks of
that slavery. Plus, it presents a contradiction, which I readily admit. It pits the approval of bond-slavery against the condemnation of oppression and dehumanization. The only slack that can be cut is when Jesus taught that love for God and love for one’s neighbor (this would include the bond-slave) informs all the other laws (including the laws of bond-slavery, itself). These sorts of contradictions are problematic (as I’ve admitted previously).
Therefore, a slack-jawed, generalized statement that “the Bible condones slavery” is irresponsible, a terrible argument, and sets up a straw man argument intended to knock the Bible down as “authoritative.” Even though I’ve argued that the Bible isn’t authoritative in that regard, for the factual reasons I’ve mentioned.
