Slavery in the OT

lawtonfogle · Jun 15, 2010

Sketcher said:
Such as?

Having 'consensual' sex with a child, assuming you married them first.l

Buying a child for the purpose of making her either your own, or one of your son's, or one of your slave's wife (and it never says she gets to consent to this).

Besides, I would be very careful about saying what this means. God gave a narrow definition of what is sexually acceptable in Genesis 2:24. One man, one woman, within the bonds of marriage. They were both adults. They were husband and wife. It was consensual. That's God's will for sex. Any deviation from that is sin.

The idea was that if they were married, it was consensual. But I'm avoiding the whole issue of what happened when the female didn't consent, and instead dealing with the issue of when the female did consent, but it would be a crime today because the female would not be able to consent.

A 13-year old in this culture isn't a functioning adult. Becoming a functioning adult isn't strictly a matter of age, but of maturity.

Not normally. I know of only two cases, one involving a genius, one in a similar culture (second world country, fought in the courts, was emancipated). Of course, the idea that some action is ok in some cultures, but not ok in other cultures, hints of cultural relativism unless we give a strict, cross cultural definition of what it means to be mature enough to consent to marriage, but no one seems to be able to do this, and most people end up relying almost solely on cultural relativism.

But you're not looking at how Jews, who consider this law binding upon themselves, consider it. I'm not talking about liberal Reform Jews either, I'm talking about opinions that are hundreds of years old at the newest.

I pointed out what the Talmud says.

No. When a Hebrew man bought a Hebrew girl as a slave, that was considered a betrothal.

Wrong. It may have been, but the slaves master was allowed to give her to a son or a slave as a wife also.

She was his slave, but if she had not obtained her freedom by puberty, he was obliged to either marry her, give her to his son, let her father redeem her, or let her go free without demanding any compensation from her. He couldn't sell her has a "wife" to just anybody. He'd broken faith with the original terms of the contract.

Where does it say that at? No really, does it say it somewhere in the Talmud, because I have not heard that before. It still leaves the issue of him being able to marry her before she hit puberty.

That's a misinterpretation. Violating a minor is not condoned in any way in Judaism - rather, if a girl had been violated as a minor, the Talmud gives instructions as to what is to happen next. Violating a minor is a particularly nefarious form of sex outside of marriage, which the law condemns. Full answer here.

If you noticed, it was talking about violating a minor who is under 3 years of age.

That does nothing to answer the objection I brought up about Niddah 44.

And so maybe the man will get a few lashes for having sex outside of marriage, then he will marry the girl.

And there is another Niddah which points out how long a pre-puberty virgin should be given between the first act of sex and any other (about 4 days if I remember correctly). This shows pre-puberty children were getting married.

And yes, to be very technical, the Talmud does not permit sex with a three year old, Niddah 44 say she must be three years and one day.

lawtonfogle · Jun 15, 2010

Sketcher said:
If everyone is equal before God, then that implies that slavery is injustice to him.

It does not imply that anymore than it implies a parent being over his/her child is an injustice to God.

Since when have entire economies been founded on adultery? If you want to know why slavery wasn't outright abolished in Scripture, that's why. It would have meant economic disaster. Besides, the Law of Moses did compromise on divorce and therefore, adultery according to Matthew 19:3-9.

God, in all His wisdom, couldn't set up a society in which slavery was not a necessary evil? I think you should go ask God about that one then.

God did not set up or institute slavery. As I'm sure you remember, slavery was already in existence and familiar to the Jews, they had been slaves in Egypt for 400 years. God set up protections for people because he knew that slavery couldn't be purged.

Can you show any proof of this being God's reasoning?

To give you some perspective, he really came down hard on idolatry, but look at the Old Testament - as harsh as the law is against that, the practice continued in Israel for hundreds of years.

So He could have just come down hard on slavery as well, and if the people broke the law, then so be it.

A loving and wise God will command what is best for the people while considering the big picture in which these people live. That's why slavery was regulated, to look out for the slaves.

You should probably read some of the rules concerning slavery if you think it was best for the slaves. Yeah, I admit it was far better than most cultures treated their slaves, but better does not imply good.

No, not as a sex slave. She could not be married until she reached what was in that culture adulthood,

Where does it say that?

which would have been the onset of puberty.

Book, chapter, verse.

When this occurred, she was no longer to be a slave, but to be either a wife or a free woman.

And now I know you are making things up. In Exodus 21, it clearly points out if he takes her as a wife, she is to be a wife to him, not slave. BUT, he can give her to a son as a wife, and she is to be a daughter to her, OR, he can giver her to a male slave, and she is to remain a slave.

Before this point, she would have been betrothed, but not a wife, and thus not someone who a slave master could legitimately have sex with, since that would have been sex outside of marriage.

If he couldn't marry, and thus have sex with her, till she hit puberty, why does the Talmud list rules concerning sex with girls before they hit puberty?

And lets say he didn't wait, and decided to have sex with her. Considering he already paid the father the fee for her virginity, then it seems that all would be left to do is marry them then and there. So all sex before marriage would have done is moved up the wedding date.

Her slavery would have encompassed other duties.

Well of course, but I'm not focusing on the not as bad stuff.

A_maize · Jun 15, 2010

lawtonfogle said:
Except, last I checked, earth quakes and natural disasters are separate from what happened when the descendants of one brother attack the descendants of another brother. You are comparing natural events to man chosen events, two very different things.

Good point, then to change the analogy, some people claim wars, strife and struggle are because someone angered 'God' someway. In the same vein, unless explicitly said so by God, I'd think the Canaanites were fighting and losing to the Jews for the same resources(land), not because they were cursed.

Sketcher · Jun 16, 2010

lawtonfogle said:
Having 'consensual' sex with a child, assuming you married them first.

Where does Scripture say you can have any sort of sex with a child?

lawtonfogle said:
Buying a child for the purpose of making her either your own, or one of your son's, or one of your slave's wife (and it never says she gets to consent to this).

It doesn't say you can have sex with her before marrying her, and it doesn't say that you can marry her before marriageable age.

lawtonfogle said:
The idea was that if they were married, it was consensual. But I'm avoiding the whole issue of what happened when the female didn't consent, and instead dealing with the issue of when the female did consent, but it would be a crime today because the female would not be able to consent.

But in Genesis 2:24, Eve wasn't a child. She was an adult, as was Adam. What age they would have been the equivalent of is anyone's guess.

lawtonfogle said:
Not normally. I know of only two cases, one involving a genius, one in a similar culture (second world country, fought in the courts, was emancipated). Of course, the idea that some action is ok in some cultures, but not ok in other cultures, hints of cultural relativism unless we give a strict, cross cultural definition of what it means to be mature enough to consent to marriage, but no one seems to be able to do this, and most people end up relying almost solely on cultural relativism.

Some things are relative across cultural lines. People grow up faster in some parts of the world than they do here, both physically and mentally.

lawtonfogle said:
I pointed out what the Talmud says.

You pointed out what you think it says, ignorant of the context.

lawtonfogle said:
Wrong. It may have been, but the slaves master was allowed to give her to a son or a slave as a wife also.

You are wrong. It would have been considered a betrothal, and if he did not want her for himself, then he could give her to his son (so long as he treats her as a daughter), or release her.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-21-7.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-21-8.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-21-9.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-21-10.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-21-11.html

lawtonfogle said:
Where does it say that at? No really, does it say it somewhere in the Talmud, because I have not heard that before. It still leaves the issue of him being able to marry her before she hit puberty.

Talmud Kiddushin 41a.

lawtonfogle said:
If you noticed, it was talking about violating a minor who is under 3 years of age.

That does nothing to answer the objection I brought up about Niddah 44.

And so maybe the man will get a few lashes for having sex outside of marriage, then he will marry the girl.

And there is another Niddah which points out how long a pre-puberty virgin should be given between the first act of sex and any other (about 4 days if I remember correctly). This shows pre-puberty children were getting married.

It has much to do with it. If a woman cannot marry until adulthood, and if such a violation does not count against her as a loss of virginity, thus entitling her to full dowry, this weakens your case. It's sex outside of marriage, which is forbidden. It's doing something horrible which is nowhere condoned in Scripture, either. But if you want a really good answer, why don't you e-mail the rabbi who wrote and maintains that page? He's orthodox, and specializes in the Talmud and misconceptions concerning it.

marklbernard · Jun 16, 2010

ciaphas said:
Why is slavery mentioned in the old testament with no attempt to deter people from it? I think everyone here would agree that slavery is immoral, it seems strange that a book meant as a moral guide would bring up such a subject without emphasising the immorality of it.

Is there a logical explanation for this? It's just that I feel uncomfortable in the knowlege that these books are taken as moral guidelines.

The answer to your question may be reflected in the answer that Jesus gave to the Pharisee's in terms of divorce, that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. As you read the OT scriptures in terms of Slavery you get the sense that God was setting the bar so high in terms of how they where to treat their slaves that it was something that was permitted rather than encouraged. Regardless, God made provision for the freedom of slaves in the year of Jubillee.

Also slavery was very often the result of someone owing a debt an being unable to pay that debt. A simple (though barely sufficient example) would be if I went into a restaurant ate a meal and then told them I had not the money to pay, I have an option (apart from going to jail) would be to "enslave" myself to them to work to pay off the meal that I owe them. It is not right to owe money and not be able to pay, so an indenturement to the person that you owed money to would actually be a workable solution. However if you do study the scriptures regarding slaves in the OT then you will find that God strongly commanded those who had slaves to treat them with dignity and worth

Bessica · Jun 21, 2010

marklbernard said:
The answer to your question may be reflected in the answer that Jesus gave to the Pharisee's in terms of divorce, that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. As you read the OT scriptures in terms of Slavery you get the sense that God was setting the bar so high in terms of how they where to treat their slaves that it was something that was permitted rather than encouraged. Regardless, God made provision for the freedom of slaves in the year of Jubillee.

Also slavery was very often the result of someone owing a debt an being unable to pay that debt. A simple (though barely sufficient example) would be if I went into a restaurant ate a meal and then told them I had not the money to pay, I have an option (apart from going to jail) would be to "enslave" myself to them to work to pay off the meal that I owe them. It is not right to owe money and not be able to pay, so an indenturement to the person that you owed money to would actually be a workable solution. However if you do study the scriptures regarding slaves in the OT then you will find that God strongly commanded those who had slaves to treat them with dignity and worth

I think this sort of slavery only pertains to the Jewish slaves. Slaves from other nations were not released in the year of Jubilee. They could be bought, held for life, and passed on to the next generation.

lawtonfogle · Jun 22, 2010

Sketcher said:
Where does Scripture say you can have any sort of sex with a child?

The problem is that it only bans sex outside of marriage. There are no rules banning sex with your wife, and you can marry a child considered marriage age back then.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say you can have sex with her before marrying her, and it doesn't say that you can marry her before marriageable age.

Which was 12 back in the day, though it may have been younger, the Talmud, Niddah 44 suggesting it could have been as young as 3 and one day.

But in Genesis 2:24, Eve wasn't a child. She was an adult, as was Adam. What age they would have been the equivalent of is anyone's guess.

I'm assuming you have proof that she was physically equivalent to someone who was 18 years or older?

Also, the issue is not with their bodies, because that doesn't matter. What matters is the mind, is the mind mature, and since they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their minds were in as child like a state as a child who doesn't know good from evil yet. Their minds weren't just like those of children, but young children.

Some things are relative across cultural lines. People grow up faster in some parts of the world than they do here, both physically and mentally.

As long as you are willing to admit an aspect of relativity. Of course, maturity rates differ within groups as well. I don't think it hard to find a 14 year old who is more mature than some 20 year old. Yeah, you aren't going to find many, but they it shouldn't take too long to find one of each, especially since you have a lot of immature 20 year olds out there.

You pointed out what you think it says, ignorant of the context.

And you can prove this?

The section before this was dealing with miscarriages, so that is not part of the context.

MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED23 BY INTERCOURSE; IF THE YABAM24 HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HER, HE ACQUIRES HER THEREBY;25 THE GUILT26 OF ADULTERY27 MAY BE INCURRED THROUGH HER,28 AND SHE29 CAUSES UNCLEANNESS TO THE MAN WHO HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HER SO THAT HE IN TURN CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS TO THAT UPON WHICH HE LIES,30 AS TO A GARMENT WHICH HAS LAIN UPON [A ZAB].31 IF SHE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH. IF ANY OF THE INELIGIBLE PERSONS32 COHABITED WITH HER HE DISQUALIFIES HER FROM THE PRIESTHOOD.33 IF ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN DEGREES ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH COHABITED WITH HER HE IS TO BE EXECUTED ON HER ACCOUNT, BUT SHE34 IS EXEMPT [FROM THE PENALTY]. IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE.

Point out where I went out of context, being that that is pretty clear on what it says.

You are wrong. It would have been considered a betrothal, and if he did not want her for himself, then he could give her to his son (so long as he treats her as a daughter), or release her.

You are ignoring verse 4 where a master can give a manservant a wife.

As to the going free, this clearly applies if he marries her, and then does not give her food, clothing, or marital rights. This does not mean she must go free in other circumstances, such as if she is given to a slave as verse 4 allows.

Exodus 21:7 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary
Exodus 21:8 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary
Exodus 21:9 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary
Exodus 21:10 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary
Exodus 21:11 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary

Talmud Kiddushin 41a.

Tried to look it up, the only translation of the Mishnah Nashim Kiddushin I found had chapters with invidiual Mishnahs, none of which when above 20. It is likely in one of those, but it would be favorable if you could quote it.

It has much to do with it. If a woman cannot marry until adulthood

I still haven't see a place that says this, and this is not what is suggested by the texts I have read.

, and if such a violation does not count against her as a loss of virginity, thus entitling her to full dowry,

Once again, not what I have seen.

this weakens your case. It's sex outside of marriage, which is forbidden. It's doing something horrible which is nowhere condoned in Scripture, either.

In scripture, there are no lower age limits. If sex occurs between two unmarried people, even if it would be statutory rape in our day and age, Deut. 22:28-29 points out the man is to pay the father the price for her virginity, and then as her fathers choosing, be forced to marry her. There are no other punishments for stat rape.

But if you want a really good answer, why don't you e-mail the rabbi who wrote and maintains that page? He's orthodox, and specializes in the Talmud and misconceptions concerning it.

I've been looking for one to meet with in person (and hopefully they can point me to some hard copies of these texts as well, because even the best sites online are a bit shady).

lawtonfogle · Jun 22, 2010

marklbernard said:
The answer to your question may be reflected in the answer that Jesus gave to the Pharisee's in terms of divorce, that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. As you read the OT scriptures in terms of Slavery you get the sense that God was setting the bar so high in terms of how they where to treat their slaves that it was something that was permitted rather than encouraged. Regardless, God made provision for the freedom of slaves in the year of Jubillee.

While the bar was set pretty high in comparison to any other cultures back then, by our own standards, it was pretty low. You can keep a slaves wife and children assuming you bought him when he was single. And then there is the whole buying a female slave, which is detailed in the following.

Exodux 21:

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Please note the lack of age limits and the lack of the daughters consent being required for such things.

Also slavery was very often the result of someone owing a debt an being unable to pay that debt. A simple (though barely sufficient example) would be if I went into a restaurant ate a meal and then told them I had not the money to pay, I have an option (apart from going to jail) would be to "enslave" myself to them to work to pay off the meal that I owe them. It is not right to owe money and not be able to pay, so an indenturement to the person that you owed money to would actually be a workable solution. However if you do study the scriptures regarding slaves in the OT then you will find that God strongly commanded those who had slaves to treat them with dignity and worth

This is a horrible example as already been pointed out in many different threads.

Bessica · Jun 22, 2010

A_maize said:
Now back then, abandoning/divorcing a woman, in THAT society was basically condemning her to death. A brutal, brutal position. Slavery was no different.

I don't understand why divorcing a women is like condemning her to death. Is this something that is in the Bible?

A_maize · Jun 22, 2010

Bessica said:
I don't understand why divorcing a women is like condemning her to death. Is this something that is in the Bible?

Consider how society was like back then. Wars, famine, plagues were common, and there was very little ways of putting food on the table. A bad harvest could mean watching your family starve. A strong family was vital for survival, and divorcing a woman and casting her off to survive on her own would be very brutal. Which is one of the reasons why family is highly emphasized in the Bible.

DoctorJosh · Jun 29, 2010

ciaphas said:
Why is slavery mentioned in the old testament with no attempt to deter people from it? I think everyone here would agree that slavery is immoral, it seems strange that a book meant as a moral guide would bring up such a subject without emphasising the immorality of it.

Is there a logical explanation for this? It's just that I feel uncomfortable in the knowlege that these books are taken as moral guidelines.

Actually, slavery was common for thousands of years. As one nation conquered the other they enslaved the other Nation. However, God offered Freedom through Him. Moses Freed the slaves, so this is one example slavery was not a well liked thing, especially for those Egyptians, Syrians, Assyrians and others that were enslaved by their own people or the neighboring Nations. Slavery was around since the first war that happened in Genesis. It was when one tribe, Nation or group conquered the other and used the survivors as slaves. It was a horrible life, many slaves died and were starved constantly. it was even more of a reason to life free or die fighting, the ones who suffered even more so were women and children that survived. But God shows you that slavery was not accepted by God, as Moses led his people who were slaves across to the Red Sea and split the sea open to escape the armies, God destroyed the armies that were going after them to bring them back to slavery. Just one good example if you look for them. Freedom was through God. Still today slaver is common in Asia and Africa where they enslave their own people. Yet, even here in America there is sweat shops filled with illegal aliens, just in Arizona a few more were found out a few months ago. In New York Russian women were found and another filled with illegal Mexicans. It is sad and still happening, but more people don't know about it because its not on National News all the time. As Christians, it is our duty to free all slaves anywhere in the world. God Bless.

Milk · Jun 29, 2010

What's immoral about slavery, anyway?

Digit · Jun 29, 2010

ciaphas said:
I'm not sure how we can just say that slavery was taken for granted as wrong. For a time, the bible was a huge moral compass. For all of those people slavery was seen to be acceptable in the eyes of the lord.

That isn't true. A mention of an event or situation is not the same as condoning it.

ciaphas said:
Even if we keep slaves well and try reeeeeeeeeeally hard not to knock out their eye or tooth, we are keeping them captive.

Our 20th century understanding of slavery is not the same as it was in the Bible, we have ideas of abused people with no freedom, no prospectives or future. This was not so of slavery during the time that the OT was written. As people have been trying to explain to you, I cannot remember the specifics now but I researched this a while back, and slaves had a very high degree of life. They had their own property, they were treated well on average (though I do not doubt there were mistreatments of them too) and they could work towards and acquire their freedom.

ciaphas said:
our lord was very adamant about people having free will, and no matter how well you keep someone it is still immoral to keep them in service against their will. If it were acceptable to keep slaves if you treated them well then why don't we have them now?

I don't think it is acceptable, and I don't think God or Christ said or thought it was acceptable either. As I said, you are mistaking the mention of slavery, as condoning it was right and positive.

ciaphas said:
It may have been a part of life in that time, but many families survived without slaves. The lack of a washing machine is no excuse to take someone's freedom for several years of their life.

Jesus did not come to abolish slavery during His time, He came to teach a vastly superior and longer-lasting message. These teachings can be applied to all areas of our lives, and it is clear, as you rightly say, that slavery is morally wrong, and the Christian has God to thank for freedom from that, and from an inbuilt moral compass that leads and convicts us.

The atheist however has no such compass, in fact I'm surprised you feel that slavery is wrong - on what basis do you believe this? This is a simple question, but it requires deep thought.

Milk · Jun 29, 2010

Digit said:
I don't think it is acceptable, and I don't think God or Christ said or thought it was acceptable either. As I said, you are mistaking the mention of slavery, as condoning it was right and positive.

Lev 25:44-46
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

The atheist however has no such compass, in fact I'm surprised you feel that slavery is wrong - on what basis do you believe this?

The golden rule. It's not that difficult.

Digit · Jun 30, 2010

Milk said:
Lev 25:44-46
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

I'm sorry but as per usual, you can't just pick and choose passages and then use them to advocate what you wish. With no context, I can make anything advocate pretty much whatever I want, with simple mental gymnastics.

In context, I said, "Our 20th century understanding of slavery is not the same as it was in the Bible, we have ideas of abused people with no freedom, no prospectives or future." Biblical slavery has been found to be more in line with indentured servitude, much like you find when you enroll into military servitude:

- Biblical slavery had no element of kidnapping of an indentured servant, or of taking against their will. These 'slaves' served voluntarily, and they did so in order to return payment of a debt, or service.
- Biblical slavery had no racial discrimination, or any racial component to it.
- If an owner killed an owned slave, it was seen as a capital offence. In fact even so much as striking one, striking one was against the law of that time.
- Slavery lasted up to a period of around six years, it was not a life-time of ownership.
- Lastly, and most notably this strikes a very clear picture of how it was seen at the time, if a slave fled from an owner or master who was abusive, who harmed and struck the slave, it was actually illegal to return the slave to the master by force.

Parallels are easily drawn to military service which in fact we still have in today's world and is a very important and well-respected facet of life. Do we consider soldiers and military persons slaves? Well, I think not, no.

Milk said:
The golden rule. It's not that difficult.

I'm still interested to know on what grounds any non-theist would find a moral argument against slavery? Why do you feel it's wrong? Please explain specifically and in detail why slavery, and not the slavery I've discussed above which is comparable to voluntary service, but I mean completely ownership, complete control, the ability to decide whether an individual lives or dies - is wrong?

Milk · Jun 30, 2010

Digit said:
I'm sorry but as per usual, you can't just pick and choose passages and then use them to advocate what you wish. With no context, I can make anything advocate pretty much whatever I want, with simple mental gymnastics.

In context, I said, "Our 20th century understanding of slavery is not the same as it was in the Bible, we have ideas of abused people with no freedom, no prospectives or future." Biblical slavery has been found to be more in line with indentured servitude, much like you find when you enroll into military servitude:

- Biblical slavery had no element of kidnapping of an indentured servant, or of taking against their will. These 'slaves' served voluntarily, and they did so in order to return payment of a debt, or service.
- Biblical slavery had no racial discrimination, or any racial component to it.
- If an owner killed an owned slave, it was seen as a capital offence. In fact even so much as striking one, striking one was against the law of that time.
- Slavery lasted up to a period of around six years, it was not a life-time of ownership.
- Lastly, and most notably this strikes a very clear picture of how it was seen at the time, if a slave fled from an owner or master who was abusive, who harmed and struck the slave, it was actually illegal to return the slave to the master by force.

Parallels are easily drawn to military service which in fact we still have in today's world and is a very important and well-respected facet of life. Do we consider soldiers and military persons slaves? Well, I think not, no.

I'm still interested to know on what grounds any non-theist would find a moral argument against slavery? Why do you feel it's wrong? Please explain specifically and in detail why slavery, and not the slavery I've discussed above which is comparable to voluntary service, but I mean completely ownership, complete control, the ability to decide whether an individual lives or dies - is wrong?

I'm sorry to say you are wrong about biblical slavery. You have been seduced by bad apologetics. It was not voluntary. It did not last 6 years. You are describing Israelite servitude. read Lev 25:44-46 again. There is a big difference between enslaving fellow Israelites and foreigners.

Digit · Jun 30, 2010

Milk said:
I'm sorry to say you are wrong about biblical slavery. You have been seduced by bad apologetics. It was not voluntary. It did not last 6 years. You are describing Israelite servitude. read Lev 25:44-46 again. There is a big difference between enslaving fellow Israelites and foreigners.

I am describing slavery, the term used to describe both foreign and Israelite slaves, it is the same word in the Bible and it has been determined to mean the same thing. It's actually got nothing to do with apologetics at all, and more about historical accuracy and method.

ebed is the word used to describe a slave in the Bible. It was translated to the English word slave. Read Exodus 21:6 for example and see what it says:

"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."

And you think ok, that says he will serve for life, not for six years. But my comment about context is important as always, verses 1-5 say:

"Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:"

Doesn't sound like our idea of slavery, freedom to leave, freedom to choose to stay, occasionally being given a wife by his master, allowing her to go free when he does and so on.

Slaves, ebeds, were also held and thought of as equal to the standing of their masters. (Job 31:13-15). I could go on. It's my honest belief that you cannot simply say, "read it again" and make an assertion without any support.

You also avoided my question, so since I've addressed yours, please address mine. :>

razeontherock · Jun 30, 2010

Let's not forget that jobs weren't like applying at K-mart and taking the bus. If you weren't wealthy you needed to work, and stay with your "Master." The equivalent of today's minimum wage earner.

Milk · Jun 30, 2010

Digit said:
I am describing slavery, the term used to describe both foreign and Israelite slaves, it is the same word in the Bible and it has been determined to mean the same thing. It's actually got nothing to do with apologetics at all, and more about historical accuracy and method.

ebed is the word used to describe a slave in the Bible. It was translated to the English word slave. Read Exodus 21:6 for example and see what it says:

"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."

And you think ok, that says he will serve for life, not for six years. But my comment about context is important as always, verses 1-5 say:

"Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:"

Doesn't sound like our idea of slavery, freedom to leave, freedom to choose to stay, occasionally being given a wife by his master, allowing her to go free when he does and so on.

Slaves, ebeds, were also held and thought of as equal to the standing of their masters. (Job 31:13-15). I could go on. It's my honest belief that you cannot simply say, "read it again" and make an assertion without any support.

You also avoided my question, so since I've addressed yours, please address mine. :>

OK, so it sounds like you are arguing that a slave is a slave in the Bible. There was no distinction between Israelite and foreign slaves. This is simply not true. Theres no debate over thisHebrew slaves (as your proof text confirms) were to be released after 6 years, foreign slaves were not. Its very simple. I have no idea what you are trying to prove by showing that the Bible uses one Hebrew word for slave.

As for your curiosity about how a non-Christian could be against slavery....one really doesnt have to read the Bible to figure out the golden rule is a good idea. I would not want to be bought and sold and would not want my kids to be inherited by my masters kids. Because of this, I call slavery bad. Why do you think slavery is bad? Or do you? If you do, what about it do you find to be immoral?

razeontherock · Jun 30, 2010

Where do we see the golden rule before Jesus?

Slavery in the OT

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

Newbie

Born Imperishable

Active Member

Newbie

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

Newbie

Newbie

Active Member

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads