GhostWriter16
Deity
Regarding slavery, I absolutely disagree with it. I will remind you that the Greek word for slavery in the Bible is used to mean different things in English, and whether "Slave" is the correct translation or something closer to "Indentured Servant" is sometimes tough to figure out.
Regarding the Confederates, I defend their legal right to secede, and I consistently tell people the North really isn't all that much better, the the CSA itself had numerous wrongs that needed to be corrected, and probably would have been corrected even if they won the Civil War, much how the North itself had numerous wrongs that needed correction, and were corrected.
To be honest, the standard of living of the majority of the slaves, who were owned by people that had small farms and only one or two slaves, were, I think, a little better than the people who had to work 80+ hours a week to survive immediately after the Civil War.
That doesn't make either one OK.
As for those being in debt, there should certainly be some kind of consequence for not paying people what they are owed. The Old Testament system, while not really applicable today, provide a system where there is both justice (You don't just walk off scot-free and end up making interest rates higher for everyone else) and mercy (They only have to serve for seven years, and are given more capital to work with afterwards.)
Can we be SURE? No, I guess not.
However, the entire book of Genesis is written as a literal text. It is a historical narrative, from beginning to end. Revelation, on the other hand, is Jewish apocalyptic literature full of metaphors. While there are definitely parts that should be taken literally, its undeniable that not ALL of it is supposed to be taken literally.
As for him inspiring the Bible with Hebrew words, I think he did, since the writers actually spoke Hebrew and would understand it. God can speak in any language he likes.
I would also like to comment on an alternative interpretation. Some people think the "Years" are months and thus they didn't really live the extraordinary lengths of time that the text claimed. However, the reality is that at least two people "Begat" a child at 65 "Years" of age. 65 "Months" is 5 1/2 years. I don't think a 5 1/2 year old man can have kids. The intent seems to be literal. I just don't see any good reason to take that text metaphorically.
Actually, you COULD take it 100% literally, but that pretty obviously wouldn't be the intent. Both John of Patmos and the prophet Daniel see visions of strange looking, clearly non-existant "Beasts." Other than the occasional little kid who reads it, nobody really thinks that these beasts will literally walk the Earth. Its a metaphor for something.
There's nothing wrong with a mostly literal text using an occasional metaphor. Daniel, notably, is pretty clearly divided into two parts (I am not famililar with the last two chapters that Catholics have in their Bible but Protestants for some reason do not have in their Bible, so for any Catholics in the audience when I say "Daniel" I'm referring to chapters 1-12, since I don't know anything about 13-14). The first half seems to be clearly describing actual events, the stuff that HAPPENED to Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendigo. There's no metaphor there. The second part seems to be pretty clearly describing metaphors, things that are seen in visions but actually mean something different. Nebuchadnezzer's dream is something that happens in the first half of the book, and while the dream itself did happen, and was prophetically told and interpreted by Daniel, the dream itself was metaphorical, the golden head representing Babylon, the silver Persia, the bronze Alexander's Macedonia, and the iron Rome, with the iron mixed with clay in the legs being the prophecy of Rome splitting into two.
In fact, not only is it a metaphor, Daniel even says so, although he doesn't name the nations involved. It seems clear from the text, now that we've SEEN 2,500 more years of history, that the above is what the metaphor is explaining.
Not all of Revelation has really happened yet (Nor all of Daniel as well) but the same appliees. Its apocalyptic literature, its not MEANT to be taken literally. Its about seeing visions.
Genesis, on the other hand, is a historical narrative. Its explained as a historical narrative. And New Testament writers assume at least most of it is historical narrative. Jesus names the prophets "From Abel to Zechariah" (Zechariah was actually the last one even though Malachi is for some reason the 39th book, he is chronologically before Zechariah). The writer of Hebrews says "By faith Abel..." and James says "Was not your father Abraham (Implying he really existed, and he really said and did the things that, who guessed it, Genesis says he did.) Its treated as a historical narrative, throughout the Bible. Now, is it possible that, in spite of that, the first three chapters were actually in some sense metaphorical? I'm not so prideful as to say anything is impossible, or that I can't be wrong, but all of the evidence in the Bible says to me the each of the 50 chapters are a historical narrative of the pre-Israelite period.
