Dealing with embarrassing passages in the Bible

[IndigoChild5559]

My text states she was a maid.

The Hebrew word means female slave.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I dont' really care if the translation is the KJV or not (personally I think the KJV is the worst one you can pick). The word in Hebrew refers to a female slave. It is the Hebrew that matters.

Which is why I asked whether somebody well versed in Hebrew could verify the translation; i should have read on, because it turns out someone already had;

See post #12

Now who am I to accept as correct, you or this other poster who is also cognisant with Hebrew?
This, for an English speaker like me, is why the King James Bible, and the unprecedented level of scholarship that underpins it, is such a valuable resource.

It's the meaning which matters.

 

[firedragon]

Slaves by definition do not make choices

Thats the fallacy of division and association both.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Which is why I asked whether somebody well versed in Hebrew could verify the translation; i should have read on, because it turns out someone already had;

See post #12

Now who am I to accept as correct, you or this other poster who is also cognisant with Hebrew?
This, for an English speaker like me, is why the King James Bible, and the unprecedented level of scholarship that underpins it, is such a valuable resource.

It's the meaning which matters.

I replied to post #12, and am happy to repeat my response here. I am not that well versed in Hebrew, but I CAN access a corcordance and lexion, such as strongs:

שִׁפְחָ֥ה
shif-khaw'

Orig: feminine from an unused root meaning to spread out (as a family; see 4940); a female slave (as a member of the household):--(bond-, hand-)maid(-en, -servant), wench, bondwoman, womanservant. H4940

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thats the fallacy of division and association both.

No, its a simple matter of the definition of word in Hebrew and understanding what it means.

 

[InChrist]

This doesn't make sense to me. If it was wrong what Sarah did, why did God later tell Abraham to do whatever Sarah said?

Genesis 21:12 But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to everything that Sarah tells you, for through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.​

It seems to me that God would have punished Sarah if she did something wrong.

Also, please don't forget what Sarah said at the beginning of the story.

Genesis 16:2 So Sarai said to Abram, "Look now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Please go to my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.​

Here, Sarah makes a claim about God, The Lord. If she was wrong why didn't God correct her. Why was she blessed with a child later? If Sarah was wrong then the text itself is wrong.

You ask some good questions. But my question is why do many accounts in the scriptures and even situations in our own lives often show God allowing people to do things without correction? That doesn’t mean there are not consequences, though and Sarah’s actions did have consequences, even impacting Ishmael and Isaac. I would say Sarah was blessed with a child because
God’s promise to Abraham did not depend on her human effort, nor could it be altered by human error. God kept His promise in His way and timing. Isaac became the promised son through whom the tribes of Israel would arise. Hagar was blessed, set free from Sarah, and her son, Ishmael, also became a great leader. I believe the account shows how God continues to work both to accomplish His will and to fulfill His promises regardless of how the situation appears from a human perspective, faulty human effort, or unfaithful behavior.

 

[firedragon]

No, its a simple matter of the definition of word in Hebrew and understanding what it means.

Nah. Just because she was a slave, does not mean she was definitely raped. No way. Thats two fallacies. Illogical deduction.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nah. Just because she was a slave, does not mean she was definitely raped. No way. Thats two fallacies. Illogical deduction.

It amazes me that people don't seem to have a clue about what slavery means.

 

[firedragon]

It amazes me that people don't seem to have a clue about what slavery means.

Rhetoric is not a valid argument.

You are making a logically fallacious argument. I am not a Christian, and I dont have any necessity to white wash the Bible. But I dont intend to demonise it on purpose whichever I can. It may have a lot of other problems, but this particular claim that simply because Hagar was a slave, it was rape is false. Its just wrong, and a made up bogus argument for whatever reason you may have.

Genesis 16:3 says that Sarai gave Hagar to Abraham to be "His wife". So if that makes it "rape", there is no more sensibility in your argument.

Cheers.

 

[Shaul]

We know that she was a slave, which means automatically that she cannot "consent" as the definition of a slave is someone who forced to obey.

I don’t think “we” know any such thing. The Hebrew servant was not chattel. Hebrew servants had rights.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Rhetoric is not a valid argument.

You are making a logically fallacious argument. I am not a Christian, and I dont have any necessity to white wash the Bible. But I dont intend to demonise it on purpose whichever I can. It may have a lot of other problems, but this particular claim that simply because Hagar was a slave, it was rape is false. Its just wrong, and a made up bogus argument for whatever reason you may have.

Genesis 16:3 says that Sarai gave Hagar to Abraham to be "His wife". So if that makes it "rape", there is no more sensibility in your argument.

Cheers.

You don't acknowledge that wives can be raped? Again, no consent. Not to any marriage (if indeed that is what "to wife" means), and not to sex. You cannot be a slave and consent.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don’t think “we” know any such thing. The Hebrew servant was not chattel. Hebrew servants had rights.

Oh of course we know it. The only people who supposedly don't know it are those who are in denial about what slavery is.

And we are not talking about the indentured servitude that the Torah regulates. We ARE talking chattel slavery here.

 

[Shaul]

Oh of course we know it. The only people who supposedly don't know it are those who are in denial about what slavery is.

And we are not talking about the indentured servitude that the Torah regulates. We ARE talking chattel slavery here.

No, we aren’t. Torah is clear that servants have rights. Read the Ten Commandments. It lists some of the rights Hebrew servants had. The Jews were the first recorded people to not have chattel slaves.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, we aren’t. Torah is clear that servants have rights. Read the Ten Commandments. It lists some of the rights Hebrew servants had. The Jews were the first recorded people to not have chattel slaves.

A slave, whether the indentured servant, or the captive who is a slave for life, does not make their own choices. That is the definition of a slave.

 

[firedragon]

You don't acknowledge that wives can be raped? Again, no consent. Not to any marriage (if indeed that is what "to wife" means), and not to sex. You cannot be a slave and consent.

Okay. So now your argument is that even though she was his wife he still raped her.

That’s begging the question. Logically fallacious.

your argument changes so much because you have a pre determined necessity.

ciao.

 

[dybmh]

Sure. She scorned Sarah because Sarah was not able to have a child, and she was. THAT is NOT the same thing as consenting to sex. We know that she was a slave, therefore by defintion she does not consent.

I hear you. My objection is the harsh criticism of Sarah. What is your opinion on Gen. 21:12? There's two interesting details here. First, would God have told Abraham to listen to all she says ( "כֹּל אֲשֶׁ֨ר תֹּאמַ֥ר") if Sarah had initiated Hagar's rape? Second, in this verse Hagar is labeled "אָמָֽה" not "שִׁפְחָ֥ה", so maybe there is a status change which happened after she concieved.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Okay. So now your argument is that even though she was his wife he still raped her.

That’s begging the question. Logically fallacious.

your argument changes so much because you have a pre determined necessity.

ciao.

Are you saying that a wife can't be raped? No consent means no consent. A slave wife cannot consent.

Related question: do you think forced marraiges are legitimate?

 

[dybmh]

@IndigoChild5559 ,

I just noticed, please take a look at Gen 16:3, Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham "**as a wife to him**" An Isha, not a slave. Then after Abraham and Hagar consummated the marriage ( verse 6 ) Abraham returns Hagar to Sarah as a שִׁפְחָ֥ה, a maidservant. To me this indicates a status change. During her relations with Abraham, she was free.

Also note in verse 6 that Hagar fled. How can a slave flee like that? This shows she has freewill of the sort not expected as a slave. This is confirmed in verse 8. Hagar says "I am running away from Sarah, my mistress". I ask again, are slaves allowed to run away?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 ,

I just noticed, please take a look at Gen 16:3, Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham "**as a wife to him**" An Isha, not a slave. Then after Abraham and Hagar consummated the marriage ( verse 6 ) Abraham returns Hagar to Sarah as a שִׁפְחָ֥ה, a maidservant. To me this indicates a status change. During her relations with Abraham, she was free.

Also note in verse 6 that Hagar fled. How can a slave flee like that? This shows she has freewill of the sort not expected as a slave. This is confirmed in verse 8. Hagar says "I am running away from Sarah, my mistress". I ask again, are slaves allowed to run away?

There is a kind of wife known as a concubine. Hagar did not stop being a slave. No where in the text does it say they freed her.

surely you acknowledge that wives can be raped? No consent means no consent.

let me ask you a quesiton. if a marriage is forced, is it legitimate?

 

[Rival]

I don’t think “we” know any such thing. The Hebrew servant was not chattel. Hebrew servants had rights.

The issue here is that this was before Torah.