Part of it is modern English speakers tend to use “slave” to mean a chattel, while the slaves referred to in the Bible often had significant rights depending on time and place. So the problem is one of accurate translation. Do you leave the original word untranslated? Do you use a word no longer in common use? Do you use an old meaning of a word in common use? Or, do you use a contemporary meaning of a commonly used word? There’s no one correct answer; any choice will give some readers the wrong impression.
Is there evidence that the word “slave” is merely mistranslated?
I’m not sure I understand the question. IIUC, Pleonast’s point is that neither “slave” nor any other word means the same thing to modern English-language readers that the word so translated meant when the Bible was written.
There are many uses of the word slave and servant in the Bible. Do you have an example in mind that’s not translated appropriately?
The NET Bible is well notated. Here is the note for the first usage of the word “slave” in the book of Matthew:
BDAG refers to Bauer’s Lexicon, a standard Biblical Greek dictionary. ASV refers to the American Standard Version Bible translation.
Edited: I agree with Thudlow’s comment.
He brought up a pseudo-difference between the use of the word back then and it’s use today. “Slave” had many meanings back then, including “chattel”, but the same is true of it’s use in the last few hundred years.
It didn’t always mean “servant” back then, and it doesn’t always mean “chattel” now.
Thing is that, for example, the parable of the talents does get a very different meaning when the master expects their slaves to do businesses that will benefit the master instead of the slave (a slave that gets some perks is still a slave).
When one hears “servants” it leads many to expect a person that can eventually get his/her freedom and enjoy those perks properly.
Of course, one tries to explain that as the parable as being an allegory where the master is Jesus; but again, the relationship does indeed change a lot if we see ourselves as slaves or servants of god. And also again: there is not a condemnation of slavery, but to see it as normal. Problem being that it is not normal nowadays.
Yes, you are both right. The choices made by translators are significant and imperfect.
And sometimes words mean what they mean even when they hurt your cause.
True. Do you have an example in mind?
Slave.
The Bible often shifts perspectives from a God view to man’s view, and other views. This is just not a change of perspective but concurrent realities happening. It is the Schrodinger’s cat being demonstrated, both alive and dead at the same time. It also goes into using real world we can see stuff to help us understand spiritual stuff which we can’t see which I believe is the case with slavery.
The book that I like to turn to to demonstrate this is Ecclesiastes where Solomon laments that everything is meaningless and nothing new under the sun and man’s toil is meaningless. Well that’s not true, Jesus did not toil meaningless and many others have not either, however it is true in the sense of man all is meaningless. Jesus states this ‘quantum state’ best when he says that pagans chase after things of life, but seek first the kingdom of God and all these things will be given to you for your Father knows you need them. From mans perspective nothing matters, but from God’s perspective it all matters.
The bible will frequently change realities, one explaining a dead cat reality and the other a alive cat reality. In the end the dead cat reality will collapse and never existed, as we see in what is commonly called the Prodigal son. Two realities, the son holds he is a man and is responsible for his self. Even upon his decision to return to his father he still goes as a man looking for employment. This is one reality, ‘the dead cat’. From the Fathers perspective the son will return when he learn who he is, not a man but a child and member of a great family. One that not only can he never leave, but one that he has never left. the Father’s wisdom let him create that alternate reality coexisting with the one where he is a child learning. If the son could make it on his own that reality could exist, but as soon as the child realized he was always a member of the family (most likely some time when the ring was put on his finger), he realized that the reality is that he was just a loved child who learned who he is and the other reality collapsed, much like when we open the box and see that the cat is alive. But until then the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.
As for slavery, God often uses our physical stuff and authority structures so we can see what happens in the spiritual equivalent. We can see this when God commanded how to put together the Holy of Holies, and how Jesus said what is bound on earth is also bound in heaven. It is also the basis of the temple system. In this case anyone who sins is a slave to sin and we can see the consequences. Paul talks about freeing oneself from bondage, or at least to serve God while in bondage if you can’t get your freedom.
So with the 2 systems, from the system of death (using the cat analogy), you will get the ‘worldy’ perspective, the one that states everything is meaningless. Using Jesus’ words of how we should treat each other, including sinners and servants we get the Godly perspective and that co-existing reality.
Okay. Which verse in which version of the Bible? And describe how it hurts someone’s cause.
I will have to say that in this reality one can collapse such ideas and file them in the nonsense archives.
Sorry, but in reality in the ancient times a lot had to die for the woman or children to become slaves (as in when a city fell and the survivors became slaves). In more recent times a lot of slaves in ships died before arriving to America, so the point here is that there were then lots of “sinners” that never had a chance to see any consequences. Nor a chance to be free from bondage * as they were killed.
- Both literal or spiritual.
And what is the spirit of this law? “Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.”
Can’t wait to hear WIRM(what it really means).
Interestingly enough we do have a story that Jesus tells about a son who insulted his father, which has been discussed in this thread. The Prodigal Son. He doesn’t come down on the side of killing said prodigal son in the story that He tells.
There aren’t many viewpoints that can’t be supported by Bible verses-you just have to look hard enough.
Which supports my quantum theory analogy.
I’m no expert of the old law, but because of Jesus’ many critiques of literalism and because Jesus’ sacrifice pays the penalties of sin, I don’t feel bound by the details of the old law and it doesn’t concern me.
Or to put it another way, the answer to your question is: it’s beside the point and does not matter.
Yes, yes, you’re very good at quips but not so good at discussion. Do want to discuss the translation of the Bible or not?
Sure…just as long as we are all on the same track as to which Bible we are translating. Is the KJV o.k. with everyone?