Proverbs 23:13-14

13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

These verses, like many others, advocate the abuse of children. While many parents still practice corporal punishment today, few use a rod to do so. It has become widely accepted that corporal punishment does not work and that there are much more effective, less psychologically damaging parenting and disciplinary techniques.

One would imagine that an all-loving, all-knowing god would know of such parenting and disciplinary techniques and would have revealed them to mankind in an effort to decrease human suffering. The only logical conclusion is that the King James Bible was written by men who valued control over what was right. That, or Yahweh simply enjoys having children suffer and die.

Exodus 21:20-21

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.