• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Slavery, a Guide

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Clizby WampusCat, Jul 22, 2020.

  1. Silly Uncle Wayne

    Silly Uncle Wayne Well-Known Member

    +562
    Ireland
    Charismatic
    Single
    I'm going to address them when I address them and not before. Unlike you I have a life outside these forums and if I am going to tackle a subject I like to to do it in detail, not piecemeal. This means looking at the whole thing - all of the relevant passages as well as the whole process. Once the whole has been assimilated the the details can be covered. So far I've only looked at Exodus, with asides to Deuteronomy where there a parallel passages. I am also, at present, ONLY looking at Hebrew slavery because so far that is the only thing that has been covered.

    Some thoughts, though. The laws in Exodus aren't what people are already doing since at that point in time they are still wandering in the wilderness. The laws, based on comments I have read, are unique in that they exist at all. Contemporary laws seem to have nothing to say about slavery so anything goes.

    The rules of slavery differ between men and women, but then men and women are different, with different requirements and those differences were exacerbated by the cultural norms of that period.

    The laws in Exodus seem to fall into the following categories:

    a) This is what you should be doing, e.g Treat the foreigners among you in the same way as yourselves.
    b) This is what you shouldn't be doing, e.g. don't boil a kid in its mother's milk
    c) if you do something there will be consequences, e.g if you fight and someone gets hurt you have to pay for them, whether by a a life, or financially compensating them.

    The only passages so far about damaging slaves have fallen into c). And this style of law is common in both our cultures. If you speed in your car, you will be fined/have points added to your licence. Because there are consequences you wouldn't say that such laws 'condone' speeding, rather the opposite because they clearly shows some form of punishment for the transgression. The same is true for beating slaves. That it happens is accepted, but it clearly isn't turning a blind eye to it - on the contrary it is telling you that there will be punishments for this transgression (though possibly not enough in one case).

    I agree the topic is quite vague, but then, unlike you, I get the impression that they were expected to apply a bit of common sense in the application of laws. If the law is specific then there are loopholes, whereas when the law is vague there principles and those principles need to be interpreted and they would have been (read the other laws in Exodus, there are some interesting things about witnesses and accusations and how they were to be applied).

    It seems to me that the Ten Commandments are at the heart of the law and these 'additions' are explanations of the practice of the Decalogue. The principle seems to be attacking someone deliberately that ends in decisive death is murder. Attacking someone where injury occurs has a cost (punishment) and someone dying after an attack where the death is not necessarily as a result of the attack is not murder. The latter might seem overly cautious but the implications are that if there is uncertainty in the case of murder then to err on the side of caution lest the judge ends up being party to murder when it is unwarranted.

    Nevertheless I don't think it is quite as vague as you seem to make out. I, so far, appear to have understood the process going on, the general principles and the pros and cons of it. It has already been pointed out by you that the laws in Exodus don't apply to foreign slaves. I'm not sure I agree, but I haven't read far enough to be certain, but that is irrelevant at the moment. If these rules don't apply to foreign slaves and the do apply to Hebrew 'slaves', then all the laws apply, because they are Hebrew - whether they are slave or free. Being a cruel slave-beating master does not exempt them from the law in any way.

    Now if you will remain patient, I will continue to study and draw appropriate conclusions from the whole law, not just a few verses here and there.
     
  2. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +717
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I will submit a second response to this one later. As I too have a life :)

    But for now, please remember you asserted that the Bible does not justify the "American slave trade." While, also admitting you have not studied what the Bible actually says about slavery as a whole.?.?.?.?.????????????????????????

    Hence, until you study up, you do not get to make blank assertions; especially when you will later find that such assertions will likely not hold water; without performing quite a bit of mental gymnastics.
     
  3. Silly Uncle Wayne

    Silly Uncle Wayne Well-Known Member

    +562
    Ireland
    Charismatic
    Single
    I don't actually need to study the Bible to know that it does not support the American slave trade in any form whatsoever. I'm currently studying it in response to the OP and commenting as I go through.

    Let's consider why I know that the Bible can't really be used to justify the American slave trade:

    1) A war was fought over the freedom of the black slaves (very basic and non-nuanced, but this comes from a British teenagers' knowledge of the American Civil War).

    2) Christians all over Europe spent decades trying to prevent the slave trade (slightly later in my life and built upon the story of William Wilbeforce)

    3) Christianity affirmed the dignity and freedom of every person (again non-nuanced, but that was how Christianity was perceived from the outside, by atheists including me).

    4) Jesus said that he came to set the captives free. One can argue what 'free' means in the context, but one cannot dispute that this was what he is purported to have said.

    5) Early Christians opposed the slave trade. We have long written arguments from the Church Fathers that call for slaves to be freed (e.g. Basil the Great, I think wrote something on the subject).

    6) St Patrick tells of his own kidnapping by Irish raiders and his subsequent conversion. In a second letter his vitriol against the slave trade is very obvious (I didn't read this until I was studying Church History).

    7) History tells us that as Europe became Christians, slaves were replaced by serfs - free men who owed service to some lord.

    8) In order to justify their treatment of slaves, owners had to consider blacks as non-human.

    9) When the blacks began to read, they were given cut-down Bibles with huge chunks removed... because it was clear to those producing such a Bible that there were too many awkward questions that would arise if they had the whole story.

    So even without reading the actual Bible I can get an impression that the majority of Christians throughout the years have not seen justification for any slave trade, let alone the American one in their Bibles. I thought that back in the days when I was an atheist, with limited knowledge of both history and the Bible and since becoming a Christian, I've not seen anything to disabuse me of that notion.

    Indeed the only reason I came across anything to the contrary was because New atheism speakers seemed to bring it up during the 2000's. And when I looked into it, most of the comments could be traced back to The Skeptics Annotated Bible or similar. And the problem with the SAB is that it really has no concept of study - verses taken in isolation were used to justify whatever point they wanted to make - even if the very last or next verse completely disabused them of their interpretation.

    Nor has my studies so far backed up the claim that the Bible can be used to justify the Black American slave trade and that the similarities between the two are far outweighed by the dissimilarities.

    Now I know I haven't completed my investigation, but there is going to have to be a lot of explanations to try and tie the two together, and the verse in Leviticus you love to quote still fails to see that there were legitimate ways for slaves to gain their freedom in Israel, but not in America - which surely is a key difference.
     
  4. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +717
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Yes you do need to study the Bible. An American slave trader can certainly use Chapter and Verse to support their agenda. And please remember, the American slave trade did not involve the Jews. Please read Leviticus 25, for starters. I've highlighted the key part, for which you have now ignored at least three times now.

    You keep stating you will not address items for which you have not yet studied. Yet, your comment clearly flies directly in the face of what the Bible instructs of it's readers.



    This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact an American slave trader can use the Bible to justify their actions. God appears to command His readers, that if you are not a Jew, you can be kept as property, and beaten, for life. The fact that any war was later fought to free them is irrelevant. We are speaking about what the God of the Bible supports/allows/sanctions, not what people "want".



    You must again acknowledge that the Bible distinguishes differing 'classes'. Please again, simply start by reading the Verse you referenced (Deuteronomy 15:12), or Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. An 'indentured servant' and a 'slave' were not afforded the [same rules]. If you were considered a 'slave', and not willful opt-in servant, you were considered sub-human. You then had your own special rules.



    Jesus did not abolish 'slavery' practices. As I told you, from many responses ago... Regardless of if you adopt a Covenant based theology, or instead a dispensational view, you must still acknowledge/accept that 'slavery' is still active under God's eternal rules/allowances.



    So? The Bible supports/condones such activities. Hence, their feelings of direct opposition to slavery really does not matter to God.



    The Bible does provide a distinction between opt-in servants, and the 'slave'. As you demonstrated yourself in Deut. 15:12; if you opt in, the rules are different. But as I keep pointing out, for which you refuse to acknowledge:


    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    Were they allowed to read these parts? I bet they were. This might prove "awkward" for you:

    5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

    or

    22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving
    .


    I'm only concerned with what the author(s) of the Bible think. As instructed, if you are not clearly sanctioned as an opt-in Jew, then you can be a lifetime slave; whom can be beaten at will, for life.
     
  5. Skreeper

    Skreeper Well-Known Member

    +2,628
    Germany
    Atheist
    Private
    Whitewashing slavery. I just love how warped the minds of some Christians are.

    I would have a much more favorable view of you guys if you weren't trying to find excuses for obvious immoral passages in the Bible. Just admit that some passages are not good, which is to be expected when written by ancient humans.
     
  6. Silly Uncle Wayne

    Silly Uncle Wayne Well-Known Member

    +562
    Ireland
    Charismatic
    Single
    Why is it whitewashing? All of the parties involved in the Old Testament weren't white, they were semitic.

    Also why is it immoral or not good. Surely it is immoral and bad to allow people to starve, freeze or die. The Hebrew law provided for everyone - the only issue is those who look at isolated passages without understanding the big picture.
     
  7. Skreeper

    Skreeper Well-Known Member

    +2,628
    Germany
    Atheist
    Private
    I think you need to look up the definition of whitewashing because it has nothing to do with race or color of skin.

    Do I really need to explain to you in detail why owning people as property is immoral?
     
  8. Silly Uncle Wayne

    Silly Uncle Wayne Well-Known Member

    +562
    Ireland
    Charismatic
    Single
    Well I know what it used to mean, but nowadays it seems to only exclusively mean seeing the past through some kind of white superiority.

    If you are aware of the real meaning of the term, perhaps you could explain how you think I am whitewashing the issue of slavery in the Bible. Moreso, if we are using this term correctly, then far from whitewashing I am doing the exposing of unpleasant facts - unpleasant to those who have a false view of what the Bible says.

    I'm glad we can both agree that. Bear in mind that there have been around 1900 years of Christians doing their best to prevent any kind of enslavement. They didn't do this because they thought that we in the 21st century would be offended by it.

    Rather than making blanket judgements you should actually read what is being said. Do what I am doing and read through the Jewish law on the subject. I've read Exodus so far and so far there has been only one reason that someone is sold into slavery - theft where the designated fine cannot be paid. the person so sold has then up to 7 years to pay off their debt at which point they are free to go.

    Not really slavery so much as doing time. Of course you might be of the opinion that crime should not be punished, but each to his own - the Jewish law appears to entirely about fairness with punishments not exceeding the crime, nor limiting people to some kind of imprisonment. As an advocate of restorative justice, I can't help thinking that the Israelite form of punishment is far superior to most of what we have in the western world.
     
  9. dóxatotheó

    dóxatotheó Orthodox Church Familia

    641
    +196
    United States
    Christian
    Single

    • In both the Old and New Testaments, the words used to denote slaves did not necessarily carry the same connotations that we associate with slavery today. Only by understanding the biblical texts and the cultures that produced them can we understand what is being referred to in the Bible.

    • The stealing and selling of human beings, such as has been common throughout human history, is a capital offense according to Old Testament law. The return of fugitive slaves to their masters was also illegal.

    • In almost every instance, the kind of slavery governed by Old Testament law was debt-slavery, where an individual would offer labor in exchange for an outstanding debt that he could not pay. The laws that govern such transactions are given to protect the rights of such slaves, who could only serve for a maximum of six years.

    • Early Christians had to work out their treatment of one another under Roman law, which they lacked the political influence to change.

    • The Christian community was a counter-cultural movement in which social distinctions were all but erased. Jesus is the true Lord, and masters and slaves were expected to treat each other as beloved brothers and sisters and equal members of the body of Christ.

    Slavery in Old Testament Law

    Out the outset, we must make an important distinction between the Old Testament passages on slavery and those found in the New Testament. The passages in the Old Testament that we will be considering are found \ in the laws of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. One of the primary purposes of these laws was to govern ancient Israel—a nation that enjoyed a special covenant relationship with God and lived under kings and rulers who were supposed to govern in accordance with these laws. The New Testament passages, by contrast, are written to Christians who lived in the Roman Empire, where slavery was an important, socially-embedded institution. In other words, while the Old Testament law was given by God to be the law of the land, the admonitions in the New Testament are given to people living under someone else’s law. Accordingly, we will treat them separately.

    Getting the Terminology Straight

    A major cause of confusion for contemporary readers is the assumption that the word “slave,” as it is found in Old Testament legal passages, meant the same thing in ancient Israel as it does for us today. The Old Testament was written in Classical Hebrew, and so it is not surprising that certain words do not have perfect equivalents in modern English. The difficulty felt by Bible translators in rendering the Hebrew terms relating to slavery is fairly well-publicized.[1] Strictly speaking, the Old Testament does not call an individual bound to the service of another a “slave;” it calls him an ʿebed (pronounced eved), and a woman in such a role is called an ʾāmâ. While these terms can connote very harsh slavery, comparable to that which was found in the Antebellum South (e.g., the Hebrews as Egyptian slaves), it often does not, as is the case in most of the words’ appearances in the so-called Old Testament “slave laws.” The most that can be said about in general about these two terms, especially the first, is that they are used to denote a social class that is relatively lower than another. Thus, it is common in Old Testament speech for people to refer to themselves as “your servant” (Heb. ʿabdekā) when addressing someone submissively.

    General Observations

    So just how similar was Israelite slavery to our conception of the institution that bears the same name? Not much. Consider first that Israelite slavery was voluntary. Exodus 21:16 says, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Found among the earliest cluster of slave laws, this speaks directly to the issue of slavery, and forbids anything resembling a slave trade among the ancient Israelites. This verse alone should make it clear that “slavery” in Old Testament law is vastly different than anything that we commonly associate with slavery. By contrast, Leviticus 25:39 and 47 speak of the poor Israelite as “selling himself” into servitude, suggesting what we will soon discover—that Israelite slaves were debt-servants, not human chattel deprived of freedom and basic rights. The fourth commandment even requires that slaves enjoy the Sabbath along with their masters (Exod 20:8–11). Thus, any passage that speaks of masters as “buying” Hebrew servants should be understood as referring to a voluntary act, in which the slave was not sold by another, but sold his own labor to another Israelite.

    Another important law that should inform our understanding of what was legal in ancient Israel is Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.” According to the law of Moses, it was actually illegal to return a fugitive slave.[2] In fact, this passage commands his fellow Israelites to allow him to dwell wherever he pleases. Effectively, Israelite slaves could break their service contracts simply by leaving. Slavery in Israelite law was entered into voluntarily and could be ended voluntarily. This stands in stark contrast to other ancient Near Eastern law codes of the day, such as the Law of Hammurabi (ca. 1792–1750 BC), which gives a drastically different perspective on runaway slaves:

    If a man should harbor a fugitive slave or slave woman of either the palace or of a commoner in his house and not bring him out at the herald’s public proclamation, that householder shall be killed.

    If a man seizes a fugitive slave or slave woman in the open country and leads him back to his owner, the slave owner shall give him 2 shekels of silver.

    If that slave should refuse to identify his owner, he shall lead him off to the palace, his circumstances shall be investigated, and they shall return him to his owner.

    If he should detain that slave in his own house and afterward the slave is discovered in his possession, that man shall be killed.
    [3]
     
  10. Clizby WampusCat

    Clizby WampusCat Well-Known Member

    +675
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Unless you are Doug Becker you really need to provide the source for your copy and paste post.
    Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

    I notice you did not reply to any of my post directly just pasted an apologetic on slavery. You also did not quote all of my post, are you going to address the rest? Care to reply to any of my interpretations directly?
     
  11. dóxatotheó

    dóxatotheó Orthodox Church Familia

    641
    +196
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    yk what i will
    give me a sec
     
  12. dóxatotheó

    dóxatotheó Orthodox Church Familia

    641
    +196
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    As we can see God impose laws for the timeframe of servitude in 800 BC of course the laws imposed was for that timeframe to keep the servants that was poor and sold themselves up for servitude wouldnt be murdered or killed when they state the use of rod Jewish scholars state The Bible does not forbid slavery, nor does it demand that every slave owner who wants to please God must immediately emancipate his slaves. Instead, the Bible at every turn calls for a treatment of slaves that would have been more humane than any found in the culture at large. The very idea that a master could be punished in any way for killing a slave would have been scandalous at the time Moses gave the Law. The culture at large made no attempt to grant slaves any rights. Slaves in Egypt or Moab, for example, were afforded no such protection.
    Earlier in the same chapter, kidnapping for the purpose of slavery is condemned and the death penalty enjoined: “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession” (Exodus 21:16). (Ironically, the death penalty is another area where modern people assume their moral sensitivity is superior to God’s!) Furthermore, we must not make the mistake of equating slavery in ancient Israel with antebellum slavery in the United States. If the biblical dictates regarding slavery, including the regulations found in Exodus 21:16, 20–21, had been enforced in Western nations in the 1800s, then slavery in the United States would have been very different.
    The regulations regarding slaves in Exodus 21, far from being inhumane, would have been far more humane and protective of the slave in Israel than in any of the surrounding nations.
    Of course the views on slavery is of course agreed morally wrong but we must understand prophets who speak for God was writing in a eyewitness account and they wrote wat was commanded from God at that time of course oppression a sin its stated in Psalms so you cant say God ordains it and we must understand the laws imposed in that time was to help the people who sold themselves in servitude the timeframe of slavery and the timeframe the bible speaks on it explains quite greatly why God made laws for masters and servants and the reason the Jubilee thing because Hebrews celebrate sabbath days on jubilee the rest dont the covenant of God would be treated different because they are the seed of isaac while others are the seed of edom or canaan which stated in Deuteronomy to be sinners and actors against God making covenants not with him. Also, we cannot make moral arguments against slavery because us as humans dk how servitude in Egypt and Mesopotamia was like the only examples we have are slavery in the US which all scholars agree isnt the same slavery in the bible the use of hebrew and aramaic makes an distinction.
    We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." - 1 Timothy 1:8-11
    Notice the law is made for UNGODLY people, which would include "slave traders/enslavers(some translations have this, as opposed to slave traders)." So, I believe the general picture is that slavery, as Colonial Slavery, is shunned upon and regulations of how this to be done properly are in tact. However, one must also notice that slavery in the Bible isn't a permanent state, but temporal ; also that Adam and Eve, the ideal state of affairs God initially created, weren't given slaves
    can show me how the Bible promotes and regulates slavery to be done in the exact same way Colonial slavery took place, or modern slavery in Africa took place, then there's no "promotion" for such activity in the Bible, nor are any of the parallels you seek to draw true(between the Bible and Colonial slavery). Just because someone wrongfully used the BIble as justification to enforce something upon others, which is clearly absent from the Bible, doesn't make the Bible actually really promoting that said thing. With the same success, I may say "atheism promotes mass murdering" because some communist used atheism as justification to murder religious people. But that would be far from the truth and very incomprehensive of me.
    Exodus 21:7 says that they shouldn't go free as males do, but doesn't say they should stay slaves forever.
    Exodus 21:2-6 says that the slave should be kept forever, if the slave says "'I love my master and my wife and children; I will not leave as a free person,'" that means when the slave himself wants to stay as such.
    Leviticus 25:44 says ""'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." once again I don't see where it s ays "forever," or as you seem to imply(that Biblical regulations of slavery are the same as Colonial slavery, or African slavery) against their will.
    Exodus 21 consists of various regulations on slavery and some additional laws(not concerning slavery). I don't see anything remotely hinting at people staying slaves staying as such forever. Actually, it consists of terms for release.
    Exodus 21:20-27 speaks about IF SOMEONE STRIKE HIS SERVANT, and the servant doesn't die, or suffer serious injury, then the owner isn't to be sued. However, it doesn't promote the beating of slaves. Seriously, it doesn't say "well, beat your slaves, but to some degree." It even says, in 21:26-7 "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth." Like, do you even read these verses?
    Once again, not saying "you shouldn't have slaves," doesn't mean "go and have slaves." There's no explicit commandment to obligate people to have slaves. There's no explicit commandment for people to not have slaves either. But one shouldn't, thus, equate that the Bible promotes that. That's why there are the words "promotion" and "regulation" and the two mean different things - the BIble doesn't say YOU SHOULD HAVE SLAVES(=promotion) but THAT'S HOW YOU SHOULD TREAT SLAVES IF YOU HAVE ANY(=regulation).
    bottom source Forums | Reasonable Faith
     
  13. Clizby WampusCat

    Clizby WampusCat Well-Known Member

    +675
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    So this is Gods standard of morality? Just be better than the people around them?

    This is talking about stealing someone else's slave. That is a crime because they are property not because they are humans deserving of rights. This also does not negate Lev 25:44-46 where it says slaves can be take from the people around them.

    This is a red herring. My stance against slavery has to do with owning them as property not that I think they were treated like slavery in the US south.

    I base my objection to biblical slavery on the fact that the Bible says people are property than can be bought, sold and inherited. That is immoral at anytime in history.

    You left out eternal punishment for dishonoring your father/mother, for not wearing modest clothing, for getting a divorce, using tarot cards etc. Hell is not just for the terrible among us.

    It does not matter how long someone was a slave. It is still wrong if it was only for a minute.

    Another red herring. Slavery doe snot have to be like US southern slavery to be immoral. A "nice" slavery is morally wrong as well.

    These are for Hebrew slaves.

    It says forever in verse 46.

    As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

    Lev 25:44-46 says that they can have slaves from the people around them. And explicitly says you may have them in verse 44.[/quote]
     
  14. dóxatotheó

    dóxatotheó Orthodox Church Familia

    641
    +196
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Dont try that attack even you know thats not the case

    the word for “slaves.” In Hebrew, it is the word ebed. As any Hebrew dictionary will tell you, this word can mean “servant,” “slave,” “minister,” “adviser,” or “official.”
    examine the word for “buy.” Exodus 21:16 forbids owning and selling people, so how can Leviticus 25 allow buying people?
    Again, let’s look at what the word means. In Hebrew, this word is qnh, meaning “buy,” or “acquire,” or even “create.”
    These two clarifications make it immediately clear: Leviticus 25:44 describes a hiring process, paying someone from a foreign nation to work for you.
    Let’s use these two bits of information to clarify the verse. Now it reads:
    “As for your male and female servants whom you may have: you may hire male and female servants from among the nations that are around you.” (Leviticus 25:44, ESV) so you can stop using this verse as an moral argument
    red herring would be a problem if you never brought up AA slaves

    understanding context and hebrew you would understand what it truly mean which i shown to you
    Hell is for everyone who rejects Christ we all do those sins you stated is why Christ came in the first place
    as we understand through the hebrew and context they choose to be servants
    You brought up US slavery if i have to say it again
    These are for Hebrew slaves.
    “You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make servants of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:46, ESV)
    The word for “inherit,” nahal, can indeed mean “give as an inheritance.” Yet it can also mean the far more boring “assign.”
    Given that Exodus 21:16 forbids owning people as property, we cannot justify “give as an inheritance” as an acceptable translation.
    We’re left with “assign,” which is certainly understandable in the context. If a man hires a servant to work for him, he can also assign that worker to work for his son. “Assign”
    But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant forever. (Exodus 21:5–6, ESV)
    First of all, note how clearly this forbids the idea of slavery. The servant has the option to go free, as all servants do.
    Second, notice who has the power in this situation. The master cannot force the servant to stay. The only way a servant becomes a servant forever is by that servant’s own choice.
    Leviticus 25:46 refers to these servants who have chosen to serve perpetually. A master can assign these servants to his children, to work for them. Leviticus 25:46 clarifies Exodus 21:5–6, stating that the service is to the family, not simply to the person.
    Yet: never forget Deuteronomy 23:15–16. These verses declare that any servant can choose to go free at any time — even those who previously decided to serve perpetually. There are no qualifications in these verses. Any servant can go free at any time.
    Thus, if a master assigns a servant to work for his son, but the son begins mistreating the servant, that servant does not have to stay. They can leave whenever they want, even if they previously decided to serve that family perpetually.
    Exodus 21 forbids treating servants ruthlessly. Any servant who is injured by their master is instantly freed. Likewise, Deuteronomy 23 allows any servant to leave any ruthless master at will.

    Because of this, we cannot expect this to mean that foreigners can be treated poorly.
    now to put the verse scholars adjusted through semantics nice discussion.
    “As for your male and female servants whom you may have: you may hire male and female servants from among the nations that are around you. You may also hire from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your workers. You may assign them to your sons after you to receive as a servants who have chosen to serve you perpetually. You may hire them as servants, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:44–46, ESV adjusted).
    oh and also these laws are done away with through the cross also[/QUOTE]
     
  15. Clizby WampusCat

    Clizby WampusCat Well-Known Member

    +675
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Please don't tell me what I do and do not know. It said that God's rules treated slaves better than anyone else at that time in history and it was used as a defense of biblical slavery. So no, I don't know that is not the case.

    Then why is it not translated that way. You want me to trust you over biblical scholars that know the language? Are you an expert in Hebrew?

    I NEVER brought up AA slavery. It was brought up by YOU in the copy and paste you did. Did you even read what you pasted?

    So the Bible is not accessible to most of the people on the planet then. Why would God write a book in a language he knew would not be able to be understood by most of the people that ever lived?

    Whew! I am not going to hell then. I am not rejecting Christ, I am rejecting the claim that Jesus was God due to lack of good evidence. Do you reject Allah?

    Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Quran 4:56

    This is comical. You brought up US slavery in your cut and paste and don't even know that you did.

    Yet this only works if you are accept the fact that the bible is inerrant. Or else we can just easily conclude that EX 21:16 is wrong.

    Only the male slave. The women do not get that choice.

    The women and children have no choice and it does not say assign. That is what you made up.

    This is only for Hebrew slaves as Leviticus 25 says:

    “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: 40 he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

    So this says you don't treat Israelite slaves ruthlessly. Others you can treat as property and possess forever.

    See my sentence just above.

    Way to make up scripture. That is so dishonest and you call me disingenuous. Name one reliable translation that translates it this way. If anyone cares what it really says I quoted it above.

    btw, not one of these translations uses assigns.

    Leviticus 25:46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But as for your brothers, the Israelites, no man may rule harshly over his brother.
     
  16. dóxatotheó

    dóxatotheó Orthodox Church Familia

    641
    +196
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    "6. God says that the Hebrews can buy slaves from the nations around them, give them to their descendants and beat them without penalty. Sounds like American slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries". Your exact words because you thought i just randomly brought up african american slaves don't be foolish and btw i'm using semantics on Hebrew, so notable Hebrew bible translations wouldn't be used in that way because of various different meanings in regards to a singular hebrew words and i already responded to that verse you put you can't just use a verse that was responded to and reject the response and then use an appeal to authority fallacy on bible translations. Also quote me Jewish scholars that agree with your views because im pretty sure they agree with mines secondly the Exodus verse you quoted is a law set to keep people from kidnapping Israelites.
    Deuteronomy 24:7
    “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
    Already responded to the only hebrew slaves argument man you keep returning to it but i keep responding to it. Also women and children they wasn't the wife of the servant before he came into servitude so they were still servants. Also Gods rules were imposed to keep the servants from being treated as the slaves from the 1800s
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2021
  17. Silly Uncle Wayne

    Silly Uncle Wayne Well-Known Member

    +562
    Ireland
    Charismatic
    Single
    I don't know about you, but I don't like the term 'Human Resources' because I don't like being referred to as a resource. Yet every company that I work for uses this term now (rather than the much nicer 'Personnel').

    The term 'property' in the Bible when used in conjunction with people (which is not very often, I only found one reference) is not much different from 'resource'.

    Unlike other property, servants could choose their state, even those sold into servitude or whom volunteered or were compelled to do so. Changing on a whim was not easy, but it could be done and this is the only difference I can seen with modern day practices of resourcing where changing is a whole lot easier.
     
  18. Silly Uncle Wayne

    Silly Uncle Wayne Well-Known Member

    +562
    Ireland
    Charismatic
    Single
    It is in some translations, e.g. NET.

    The problem is not necessarily one of translation though, but one of preconceived notions. Elsewhere you say you are not thinking of American slavery when the term is being used, so it should be perfectly possible to use the term 'slave' and to understand it in its context as a person who chooses to be where they are for a time in order to pay off debts.

    It is interesting that you accepted my explanation of the use of the term 'servant' rather than slave, but not doxatotheo's.
     
  19. Clizby WampusCat

    Clizby WampusCat Well-Known Member

    +675
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    It is not an appeal to authority fallacy.

    From Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Authority
    Legitimate appeals to authority involve testimony from individuals who are truly experts in their fields and are giving advice that is within the realm of their expertise, such as a real estate lawyer giving advice about real estate law, or a physician giving a patient medical advice.

    My stance is why should I believe your translation over many actual authorities in the field? An appeal to authority fallacy is when Richard Dawkins weighs in on bible translation a subject other than biology. It does not make his statements true because he is an expert in biology.

    Yet the were still owned by another person as property. Do you not understand that it doe snot matter if they were treated well, the problem is they are owned as property. That is immoral.
     
  20. dóxatotheó

    dóxatotheó Orthodox Church Familia

    641
    +196
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Did you quote an appeal to authority fallacy than literally did it that's hilarious. and the appeal to authority isn't only based on the person in discussion you can also quote people that are high in that field and use it as arguments in discussion.
    Interesting your views on them being owned as property is based upon modernize views on slavery, I am pretty sure the servitude they are in is the same as not being Emancipated as children so basically like being controlled by parents and can't leave because you aren't obligated too. You keep making biblical slavery seem relevant to 1800s one i refuted that 2 threads ago.
     
Loading...