September 23rd, 2009
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.
First, the words for he is his money are often read as for he is is property in other translations. Some have suggested the the term smite implies that they were struck only once in the wrong place, while the term beat implies that they were struck several times.
They suggest that the law is to protect the slaves from masters who would strike them and accidentally kill them and is supposed to discourage people from beating their slaves. When you read through the various translations of the verse, you find that the term beat is used most often, followed by strike and smite. What you’re doing however, is arguing semantics over something that has been translated from a completely different language. What we are looking for is not the specific language used but the meaning of the language used.
It appears obvious that the author of the passage intended it to mean beat, as is evidenced by the various translations coming to the same conclusion. Whether hit once or several times, this passage still protects masters who would beat their slaves as long as they got up before two days. Additionally, it is possible to cause damage to certain blood vessels that will cause a person to appear fine until put under sufficient strain to cause the vessel to rupture and kill him or her. This means that this law could protect a master who beat his slave, caused such damage, yet had the slave die three days later while trying to lift something heavy. That being said, it is clear that the author of the Book of Exodus is suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable to not only own slaves but also beat them within an inch of their life, as long as they can get up and walk within one or two days.
Modern morality understands that such actions are assault and are immoral, no matter what the circumstances are. Not only did Biblical law allow the owning of slaves, but it also put laws in place to protect evil and abusive masters. Anyone with a heart can tell that this is simply unacceptable.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:29 am
I wanted to click the button <3 But the verse is awesome. Who knew? God is alright with us being sadistic assholes…. Well, we were made in his image. <3
October 9th, 2009 at 10:15 am
“smite” means they hit them once, look it up! It doesn’t mean the same as beat. If you hit your servant once, like out of anger or something, and it hits them in the wrong place, you’ll get in trouble. That’s what this is about. It doesn’t even say that if they get up before two days and then die later on that youre not in trouble. You are a liar and you obviously hate God.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Thank you for pointing that out Angela. I’ve updated the article to reflect your concerns. I must also point out that I am doing my best to represent the bible in a fair and truthful manner, if you still believe that what I’ve said is false, then I suggest you read your bible. If turns out that you still believe that what I’ve said is false, please, by all means point it out to me and tell me why. Additionally, I do not hate God. I cannot hate what I do not believe to exist. That would be like me hating unicorns.
December 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
There’s a difference between atheism and misotheism. Theism is the belief in a god. Atheism is simply the lack of theism. Misotheism is the hatred toward a god. Anti-theism is the active opposition to theism.
More often than not, I’ve found that what atheists actually advocate is rationalism, which is the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, beliefs, or conduct. Actually, I suppose that epiphany was what caused my paradigm shift away from theism in the first place.