"Scholar's" Bibles are the same and I never said they weren't. What I said was that I learned more from the foot notes that explained the meaning of terms that aren't readily clear from the text of the Bible, itself. Can you imagine the difficulty someone two to twelve thousand years in the future would have with phrases common to us today? Much of what WE understand, from our context, would mean completely different things if taken to mean exactly what the words say when translated literaly.

Most of the stories in the OT were taken from surrounding cultures by Hebrew Priests and used by them to gain and remain in power and wealth. The story of Job is difficult to know why it was included, although it seems likely it was also added by Priests to convince Hebrews (they weren't called Jews until they were taken by force to Babylon) to be strong and have faith that no matter the horrendous the events of life, one should still have faith and be sure to feed the Priests and would be rewarded by Yahweh.

There is little to no historical evidence that those mass genocides ever occurred, let alone carried were carried out by Hebrews, but they made for great entertainment for illiterate people and encouragement to fight to defend one's tribe while also pushing the narrative that Hebrews were the "chosen" people of Yahweh. And who doesn't like being told things that make them feel good about themselves, "special" and that justifies their actions?

The story of Noah and the great flood was a Hebraic retelling of the story of Gilgamesh and most ancient cultures had similar stories.

When Paul addressed slavery, it was in the context of his time- two-thousand years ago. The religion called Christianity used what Paul said, out of context and justify slavery.

Of course, I don't believe owning another person is "right" yet it continues today. And while women and children were not called slaves, right up until the 19th century, they were chattel, "property" owned by the man of the house and yes, marriages were legal arrangements decided on by men, not women, and children were encouraged because their fathers needed them as free labor and to support them in old age. And daughters were "sold" by their fathers into marriage with the sons of other men, either for political gain or financial reasons. How is that any different than simply calling women and children "slaves"? The modern concept of marriage and monogamy is just that: modern.

BTW, no question about complex issues ever has a simple "YES/NO" answer.

There are many issues with the validity of the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" but there is also much truth and beauty to be found within those collections of writings that date to roughly 8,000 BCE to 140 CE but none of those affect the fact that God, by whatever name you choose, exists.

Thank you for your reply, Boz.

Blaine