How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #3800]

Exo 21:26-27 KJV] 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

This is exactly WHY Bible-God believing slave masters beat their slaves from the back side It's hard to knock out eyes and teeth this way. They are merely abiding by God's word.

These are the rules of men (in the Bible) rather than of God. The rule of God (as from the Bible) is that one should Love another as one Loves oneself, which still allows for humans to act (apparently) atrociously if their idea of love is to beat their slaves on the back of the head as a means of avoiding penalty (from man for breaking man's rule) while still being able to assault other human beings (mistreat property).

One could assume from that, that if the one doing the beating thought of it as an act of love in order to correct a behaviour, that they would/should (in order not to be hypercritical) expect to be treated in a similar manner for any transgression they themselves commit.

In simplistic terms, "finding loopholes in the law" of both Man's laws and God's Law.

We might agree that looking for loopholes is morally questionable because the motive might have something to do with not agreeing with the (particular) law and wanting to protest it in a manner which does not directly get one transgressing said law.

Re that, if I as a parent had a child and the law of my society recognized the child as the parents slave, and the law said that I had to treat the child respectfully (with love) and that the child must obey me (within the scope of all that societies laws) and the child broke a social law and this permitted me (through another social law) to punish the child by beating its back with a whip until it bleed and locking the child in a dark room afterward for a week, only feeding the child bread and water and then afterward presenting the child to my community to show that I have done what the law told me to do, and having that child publicly apologize for it breaking the law, BUT as a parent I did not agree with those aspects of my societies laws, I might look for loopholes as a means of achieving the base result (that the law was made for the purpose of achieving) and - if the loopholes turned out to succeed the desired result, I could then present my findings to the community and perhaps in doing so, show a means of how one can replace old laws with new ones.

[POI]

These are the rules of men (in the Bible) rather than of God.

I'd say it's all from men, rather than of the "Christian God". We know men instruct and write stuff. It requires more to discern that any of it came from anything other than man alone?

The rule of God (as from the Bible) is that one should Love another as one Loves oneself

Already explained here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40608) <i.e.>:

... may want to introduce the importance of the 'golden rule'. However, the specifics outweigh the generals. The specifics of the rules for engagement of slavery are outside the 'golden rule'. Otherwise, the Bible would be a one-pager. 'Slavery' is an expressed exception to the general rule. Thus, anytime a specific scenario is not invoked, yes, 'golden rule.'

In simplistic terms, "finding loopholes in the law" of both Man's laws and God's Law.

As I told Otseng, then the Bible is no better than any other human ancient claimed God-inspired written document. Why trust this one?

We might agree that looking for loopholes is morally questionable because the motive might have something to do with not agreeing with the (particular) law and wanting to protest it in a manner which does not directly get one transgressing said law.

It's more than a loophole. The Bible-God commands complete immunity for slave masters, if they should beat their slaves and do not kill them. The specific reason given is because the slave is the master's property.

Re that, if I as a parent had a child and the law of my society recognized the child as the parents slave, and the law said that I had to treat the child respectfully (with love) and that the child must obey me (within the scope of all that societies laws) and the child broke a social law and this permitted me (through another social law) to punish the child by beating its back with a whip until it bleed and locking the child in a dark room afterward for a week, only feeding the child bread and water and then afterward presenting the child to my community to show that I have done what the law told me to do, and having that child publicly apologize for it breaking the law, BUT as a parent I did not agree with those aspects of my societies laws, I might look for loopholes as a means of achieving the base result (that the law was made for the purpose of achieving) and - if the loopholes turned out to succeed the desired result, I could then present my findings to the community and perhaps in doing so, show a means of how one can replace old laws with new ones.

The IF's are doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Why not instead call a spade a spade? According to the Bible, deemed chattel slaves may be beaten without punishment, bred, and kept as property for life.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #3802]

I'd say it's all from men, rather than of the "Christian God". We know men instruct and write stuff. It requires more to discern that any of it came from anything other than man alone?

My interest isn't in debating one over the other but critiquing the validity of the laws themselves.

The rule of God (as from the Bible) is that one should Love another as one Loves oneself

...the importance of the 'golden rule'...

I am not using the "Love one another" law as some kind of more important law but to agree that if it were considered a basis for all other laws, slavery of any kind would diminish and perhaps disappear altogether.

The specifics of the rules for engagement of slavery are outside the 'golden rule'.

Is this because you say so or for some evident reason?

As I told Otseng, then the Bible is no better than any other human ancient claimed God-inspired written document. Why trust this one?

I guess that is between you and otseng to argue out. If it is no different then a similar question could be asked. Why not trust all such written documents?
It would appear that you have issues with slavery, and that alone may prevent you from trusting the bible. Personally I have no interest in trusting any religious document until it is explained to me why I should, and this does not prevent me from considering what others have to say about why they feel to put their trust in such documents.

We might agree that looking for loopholes is morally questionable because the motive might have something to do with not agreeing with the (particular) law and wanting to protest it in a manner which does not directly get one transgressing said law.

It's more than a loophole. The Bible-God commands complete immunity for slave masters, if they should beat their slaves and do not kill them. The specific reason given is because the slave is the master's property.

I agree that this can be problematic if societies were to have kept the status quo and there was no such thing as human development through understanding. For example, do the Hebrews (through their descendents) still keep slaves? If not, then clearly this indicates changes have been made, and that there is a possible misunderstanding reflected in your arguing about something which no longer applies, as if - because a people do not keep slaves anymore, they are somehow in disobedience to their God and His commands. As I argued, loopholes allow for changes to be made in laws.
You appear to want to tie God to the Laws while at the same time arguing that not to do so means that all laws were made by humans.
As I think I am understanding ostengs argument, while laws were written by men (including the golden rule) they are understood to be inspired by a God-Mind and this inspiration also applies to the process through which laws which no longer apply to our time, as they did to another time in the past....undergo change...as I pointed out in the quote below.

Re that, if I as a parent had a child and the law of my society recognized the child as the parents slave, and the law said that I had to treat the child respectfully (with love) and that the child must obey me (within the scope of all that societies laws) and the child broke a social law and this permitted me (through another social law) to punish the child by beating its back with a whip until it bleed and locking the child in a dark room afterward for a week, only feeding the child bread and water and then afterward presenting the child to my community to show that I have done what the law told me to do, and having that child publicly apologize for it breaking the law, BUT as a parent I did not agree with those aspects of my societies laws, I might look for loopholes as a means of achieving the base result (that the law was made for the purpose of achieving) and - if the loopholes turned out to succeed the desired result, I could then present my findings to the community and perhaps in doing so, show a means of how one can replace old laws with new ones.

The IF's are doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Why not instead call a spade a spade? According to the Bible, deemed chattel slaves may be beaten without punishment, bred, and kept as property for life.

The "IF's" are part of the analogy. The analogy itself reflects what happens in the real world to do with societies and their laws.

What I think osteng argues is that the fact that humans make laws and remake laws/drop old ones for better ones) is inspired by a God-Mind, which - if the God-Mind didn't exist, osteng has it that atheism would (naturally) prevail and no laws would need to exist under atheism because there is no underlying reason to have laws. (I may be confusing ostengs argument with tanager here?)

(I would go further to say that if no God-Mind exists, then nor would human beings or the universe.)

You appear to want to focus on the idea that the Bible laws (such as the slavery stuff) should never change if indeed folk were actually following the God they say inspired such laws which is why I pressed on with the analogy above as a means of trying to point out the fallacy which hampers your understanding of the processes involved. I wonder where you get the idea that laws made by a God-Mind interacting with human minds, have to remain fixed and unchangeable.

[POI]

critiquing the validity of the laws themselves.

I laid out my case here, starting at the OP (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40608).

I am not using the "Love one another" law as some kind of more important law but to agree that if it were considered a basis for all other laws, slavery of any kind would diminish and perhaps disappear altogether.

POI As I told Otseng, God is a-okay with chattel slavery. God never abolishes chattel slavery. However, much of society later abolishes chattel slavery. Which means we no longer agree with God's standard to continue to allow/permit/sanction chattel slavery.

(U) Is this because you say so or for some evident reason?

POI Do you disagree? Is it not specifics > generals?

(U) I guess that is between you and otseng to argue out. If it is no different then a similar question could be asked. Why not trust all such written documents?

POI Otseng's point is that the Bible is just as fallible as all others. What makes the Bible any more trustworthy then -- (in line with the topic of this thread)?

(U) It would appear that you have issues with slavery

POI You do not?

(U) and that alone may prevent you from trusting the bible.

POI This topic is not why I do not trust the Bible. My ultimate point to Otseng is that the God he believes in is illogical, unless he knows of some hidden definition of the term 'love'. (Chattel slavery and love) are incompatible logically, by definition. It's not about a moral problem, but instead a logical problem.

(U) Personally I have no interest in trusting any religious document until it is explained to me why I should, and this does not prevent me from considering what others have to say about why they feel to put their trust in such documents.

POI Out of curiosity, which binary Bible camp do you side upon? (trust or lack of trust)?

(U) I agree that this can be problematic if societies were to have kept the status quo and there was no such thing as human development through understanding. For example, do the Hebrews (through their descendents) still keep slaves? If not, then clearly this indicates changes have been made, and that there is a possible misunderstanding reflected in your arguing about something which no longer applies, as if - because a people do not keep slaves anymore, they are somehow in disobedience to their God and His commands. As I argued, loopholes allow for changes to be made in laws.
You appear to want to tie God to the Laws while at the same time arguing that not to do so means that all laws were made by humans.
As I think I am understanding ostengs argument, while laws were written by men (including the golden rule) they are understood to be inspired by a God-Mind and this inspiration also applies to the process through which laws which no longer apply to our time, as they did to another time in the past....undergo change...as I pointed out in the quote below.

What I think osteng argues is that the fact that humans make laws and remake laws/drop old ones for better ones) is inspired by a God-Mind.

You appear to want to focus on the idea that the Bible laws (such as the slavery stuff) should never change if indeed folk were actually following the God they say inspired such laws which is why I pressed on with the analogy above as a means of trying to point out the fallacy which hampers your understanding of the processes involved. I wonder where you get the idea that laws made by a God-Mind interacting with human minds, have to remain fixed and unchangeable.

POI I'll give you the same response I just supplied in another thread. God has no problem laying down his objective moral standards. God already knows society will fail, regardless of circumstance. An objective God given moral law, or a (not-yet) God given objective moral law, is still impossible to follow. Hence, there is no need to beat around the bush.

(U) (I would go further to say that if no God-Mind exists, then nor would human beings or the universe.)

POI Why?

[otseng]

The given definition is a broader definition than your given definition. This means that, under the term chattel slavery, the chattel slave owner may do anything within my given broader and more detailed definition with impunity as well.

When your definition has to add "which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation", then it is narrowing it, not broadening it. What if I add "which may not include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation", is that narrowing it or broadening it?

Here are some more dictionary definitions of chattel slavery:

"slavery in which a person is owned as a chattel."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... %20slavery

"slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology

"The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude."
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Chattel+slavery

Whether there exists or does not exist torture, brutality, oppression, or rape does not define chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is simply owning a slave as property.

POI Under the umbrella of a deemed chattel slave, it's all okay by the God you believe in.

You've just contradicted yourself by acknowledging my definitions are umbrella definitions, which means your definition is narrower.

POI Afraid not. Chattel slavery is a term you obviously do not like, so you wish to only argue the parts you feel you can 'defend' or justify.

More false accusations. We've been talking about chattel slavery for pages. Rather, why are you arguing against dictionary definitions that I've provided?

(U) What would you call slavery where a master owns another person and he treats him humanely?

POI A chattel slave owner.

Exactly.

And in that case is it morally wrong? No.

Since there are cases where chattel slavery is morally acceptable, chattel slavery (as the dictionaries I've presented have defined it) is subjective.

What would you also call a chattel slave owner who beats their slaved short of death, breeds them, and never lets them go free?

Beating someone short of death would be abusive chattel slavery and it would be morally wrong.

If people voluntarily breed, then it is not morally wrong. Never letting someone go free would be subjective since there are differing situations for that.

A chattel slave owner as well. God does not have any problem with that, do you?

Chattel slavery by itself is subjective. So, no, I don't have a problem with chattel slavery. But there is a case under chattel slavery which would be wrong and that would be abusive chattel slavery.

(U) Slave beatings would be a separate issue. It happens also to other slaves and not exclusively to chattel slaves.

POI It is not a separate issue.

Yes, it's a separate issue from chattel slavery because there are two forms of chattel slavery - abusive chattel slavery and non-abusive chattel slavery. Abuse in any situation would be morally wrong. If there's no abuse, then it would not necessarily be morally wrong.

POI The 'evasion' is you skipping my direct analogy of your given rationale. By replacing a single word phrase (chattel slavery with economics), and still using the exact same set of points, you still have the exact same rationale.

Even the rationale doesn't apply as I've pointed out before:

"Wow, that guy is filthy rich" does not have any is-ought judgment in it.

I guess we cannot ground economics without an implied supernatural force either?

Another straw man. Nobody is claiming we need to ground economics on God.

(U) Why only bring up a mafia boss and dictators? Is it only because of bringing up extreme forms of authority that it is the only way to make your case look better?

POI Chattel slavery, as defined and granted by the God you believe in, does not include "extreme forms of authority"?

It includes any form of authority, including extreme forms. But by you only including extreme forms, you are fallaciously appealing to extremes.

POI All under "God". Under your belief, God is the ultimate authority, and all other said systems are still under him. Thus, I guess many governments are now wrong, by completely abolishing slavery rather than to continue permitting slavery?

You're switching the topic. We're addressing chattel slavery now, not talking about slavery in general. If you want to argue about the general case of slavery, we can discuss that after chattel slavery.

(U) How do you know God is making an opinion decision?

POI For the exact same reason you state I am making an opinion decision. Your entire argument is that God has a "nature." Well, so do humans then. You are merely replacing one 'moral agency' with another 'moral agency'. Case/point (paraphrased), 'we inherently know murder and rape are wrong, because it is in our given nature to believe so, and it is God who gives us this nature."

Is it peoples' opinions that murder and rape are wrong?

You are not solving the problem you attempt to create, but instead just pushing the problem over.

There is no need to solve all the problems, but only need to find what is the most viable explanation.

Thus, is stating 'chattel slavery is wrong' an opinion or not?

What we're talking about is objective moral values, not subjective moral values. Chattel slavery would be subjective, not objective. So, chattel slavery is not relevant to the discussion of God being the basis of objective morality.

Well, if God supplies us humans with his nature, because we realize the difference between objective right and wrong, then why did we eventually abolish chattel slavery in most parts of the world? Are we now on the side of 'evil'? God's nature instead tells us to permit/condone/allow chattel slavery.

Again, chattel slavery is subjective, so your question is meaningless.

God commands impunity for slave beatings, as long as they do not die.

Where does the Bible command slave beatings short of death? There is none.

The end. Deal with it. Do not instead merely whitewash it. Again, what version of "love" allows for such actions? Illogical.

I have dealt with it:

These are not instructions per se, but case law to handle certain situations. Here's the passage:

[Exo 21:26-27 KJV] 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

And this also is similar to other laws in the ANE.

As for beating slaves, I don't recall the Bible either condoning it or condemning it. Not saying anything about one of them does not necessarily mean it supports the other. But, I would say the general principle of the second greatest commandment would apply. Also, they were to remember they were once slaves in Egypt with the implication they are to treat others like how they would've wanted to be treated while they were in Egypt.

[Deu 15:15 KJV] 15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

[Deu 16:12 KJV] 12 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt: and thou shalt observe and do these statutes.

[Deu 24:18 KJV] 18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

[Deu 24:22 KJV] 22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

(U) Yes, you are making a moral judgment with your implication that chattel slavery is morally wrong. You've admitted you have no basis for making any objective judgment.

POI I'm not making a moral judgement.

OK, if you're not making any moral judgment about chattel slavery, then there's nothing morally wrong with it. Do you accept that?

I'm instead stating the God you believe in does not follow his own logic, unless you have a differing version of the term "love", for which I have never read or heard about. <Chattel slavery and love> are not compatible with one another logically -- (by definition).

Chattel slavery would be subjective, so it's not possible to make any objective moral statement about it. We need to look at forms of chattel slavery to make an objective moral judgment about it. Abusive chattel slavery would not be compatible with love. Non-abusive chattel slavery can be compatible with love.

(U) False attribution. Where have I said anything is objective regarding chattel slavery?

POI Yet again... God's nature/opinion/rulings are not objective? God states such practices are okay. Does this make chattel slavery objectively okay or not? Much of the globe now states it is not okay. Is most of the globe now objectively wrong?

You're conflating two issues - the grounding of objective morality and the subjective nature of chattel slavery.

POI Then I guess it is "morally right" to beat slaves, (as long as they do not die, masters can breed them, and masters can keep them for life against their will).

Abuse of slaves would not be morally right.

POI I already laid out my case, long ago, here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40608).

And what I've been showing is you're equivocating between chattel slavery and abusive chattel slavery.

[Revelations won]

Greetings,

Otseng said:

“I already laid out my case, long ago, here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40608).
And what I've been showing is you're equivocating between chattel slavery and abusive chattel slavery.”

I believe otseng has laid out his case very well.

Perhaps when looked at further a clearer answer may be detected.

I have read many of the replies on this topic, but not all. Can anyone show me when and by whom slavery was first instituted?

A clear answer to that question may open a new window of understanding.

[POI]

(U) Whether there exists or does not exist torture, brutality, oppression, or rape does not define chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is simply owning a slave as property.

POI What does the Bible state you can do with your property? That's right, God states: "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Still not answered.... Please tell me how you shoehorn this command (above) into the topic of 'love'? And by command, I mean the command is the master is NOT to be punished for the beating(s) which does not kill his/her chattel slaves. Yet again, it's not about moral judgement, but instead about a logical one. Chattel slavery, and love, are not compatible. It is thus an illogical construct.

(U) Exactly. And in that case is it morally wrong? No. Since there are cases where chattel slavery is morally acceptable, chattel slavery (as the dictionaries I've presented have defined it) is subjective.

POI You missed my entire point. the Bible-God defines what is allowed as a chattel slave master. You can beat them with complete impunity (provided they do not die), you can breed them with complete impunity, you can keep them for life, (against their wishes), with impunity. If a chattel slave master opts to carry out such tasks, God does not deem these acts punishable. Hence, he is okay with them. This was also during a time where seemingly arbitrary acts were ordered to result in capital punishment by God. And yet, beating your chattel slaves, just short of their deaths, does not make this 'capital punishment' list, such as cursing one's parents?

(U) Beating someone short of death would be abusive chattel slavery and it would be morally wrong.

POI Then you disagree with the Bible-God you believe in. Which means you are wrong. The Bible-God instead thinks it is okay. Please see your statement in red above, as well as the red bible passage above. You conflict with your believed upon creator.

(U) I don't have a problem with chattel slavery. But there is a case under chattel slavery which would be wrong and that would be abusive chattel slavery.

POI You are now stepping all over yourself. Beatings would be abusive, by objective definition. And yet, God commands no punishment because the chattel slave is his property. This means the Bible-God is okay with abusive slavery. So why aren't you?

(U) Yes, it's a separate issue from chattel slavery because there are two forms of chattel slavery - abusive chattel slavery and non-abusive chattel slavery. Abuse in any situation would be morally wrong. If there's no abuse, then it would not necessarily be morally wrong.

POI But beating your slave is abusive, and God grants such actions with complete impunity. Thus, God disagrees with you.

(U) Even the rationale doesn't apply

POI Your given rationale also necessitates the need for a supernatural force in order for economics to be objective.

(U) It includes any form of authority, including extreme forms.

POI You mean the form(s) of authority where God sanctions slave beatings with complete impunity because the slave is his property?

(U) Is it peoples' opinions that murder and rape are wrong?

POI Please do not deflect. Under your belief/argument, God gives you your nature, which is also God's nature. Your "gut reactions" are then the same as the Bible-God's nature. Your position does not ground objective morals, but instead just moves it 'sideways.' You state God's nature is objective. Okay, why is God's nature "objective"? Please explain without again falling into the trap of "might makes right."

(U) What we're talking about is objective moral values, not subjective moral values.

POI Then you are again shooting yourself in the foot. Is abusive chattel slavery objectively right or wrong? You state it is wrong, but the Bible-God you believe in thinks it's a-okay. Again, beating your chattel slave with impunity falls under the definition of 'abusive chattel slavery', by definition.

(U) Where does the Bible command slave beatings short of death? There is none.

POI That's not what I said. I said "God commands impunity for slave beatings, as long as they do not die.". In other words, God weighs in on the matter by ordering immunity for the slave masters who do beat their slaves. Why? Because they are deemed mere property. They can do as they wish without threat of punishment by God. But God certainly could have done so, like he apparently does for the ones who curse their parents.

(U) I have dealt with it

POI Then you would have to reconcile that logic demands that the Bible-God's version of granted/allowed/sanctioned/permitted abusive chattel slavery is completely incompatible with the term "love".

*********************

I'm going to stop here.....

[William]

[Replying to Revelations won in post #3806]

I believe otseng has laid out his case very well.

Perhaps when looked at further a clearer answer may be detected.

I have read many of the replies on this topic, but not all. Can anyone show me when and by whom slavery was first instituted?

A clear answer to that question may open a new window of understanding.

I think the focus re the argument between otseng and POI has to do with a particular form of slavery and POI has observed that the Bible God turns a blind eye to chattel slaves being beaten citing a verse which appears to indicate that the Bible God endorses the use of a certain level of force which allows for beating a slave to happen, and that POI considers this endorsement to conflict with Love.

As to your question, it is probably unknown "by whom" slavery was first instituted but I think it safe to assume that as a practice it was happening long before humans began to wrtie things down.

Because it falls under property law, if we are to take the 10 commandments we can identify a couple of laws which would fall under the property category.

It can also be argued that the Bible God considered the Humans (Hebrews) freed from the bondage of being slaves to another people, to being slaves to the God (through Moses as the main ambassador to the God) and their journey was long and arduous and they had a lot of baggage from their time of captivity for Moses and the God to "deal" with.

From Moses perspective, the dealing with the baggage was going to take time and his frustration (as the story is written) was very evident but he also had to plead with the God to have patience and mercy on those people which (to me) signifies that the God was also trying to teach Moses the same, and the "reasoning" Moses applied in trying to talk the God around may have stemmed from a realisation that Moses' own reaction when returning with the commandments wrought by the finger of the God (only to find that the people had resorted to their previous ways,) in losing his temper and smashing the stone tablets was in itself an act tempting retribution from the God upon Moses for his tantrum.

Did the God mention Moses' tantrum and destruction of the tablets?

If not, then it points to the probability that the God had an understanding which Moses did not quite grasp, and the opportunity made itself available where the God threatened to leave the people to their own devices (thereby curtailing a plan which had by this point some major successes) because the people were "obviously" not up to the task the God had in store for them.

Should we believe that the God "got it wrong" or that the God was attempting to show Moses something about Moses that Moses was not completely aware of at that time?

So this type of reverse psychology applied by the God, allowed for Moses to calm down and see the bigger picture. By threatening to abandon the project and leave the people to their own devices, meanwhile observing Moses' response to the idea ... Moses' pleading on behalf of the people he had not so long before been enraged by. The people actions had pushed Moses' buttons.

The advocating from Moses for the God to have mercy on the people, was a sign that Moses - all said and done - believed in the God and the plan the God had for that people. The God (Himself) had no lesson to learn (re His plan for those people) but used the circumstances to have Moses realise that the plan was trustworthy and would work, but required that the anger from Moses be controlled and channeled into a knowing that the plan would work and the People would continue to follow Moses and learn about Moses' God.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #3804]

(I would go further to say that if no God-Mind exists, then nor would human beings or the universe.)

POI Why?

Because it makes sense. As to the rest of your reply, I think it prudent at this point to withdraw and let you focus upon your particular argument with osteng.

[POI]

I believe otseng has laid out his case very well.

Otseng argues there exists 2 forms of chattel slavery, a (good kind) and a (bad kind). Even if I were to grant such a rationale, I have still clearly demonstrated that the Bible-God is perfectly okay with the (bad kind).

1) I have read many of the replies on this topic, but not all. Can anyone show me when and by whom slavery was first instituted?

2) A clear answer to that question may open a new window of understanding.

1) I trust we can agree chattel slavery existed before the Bible condoned it.
2) Okay, but to what value might knowing this add to this topic?