"Slavery" in the Bible

[POI]

Allow us readers to be very careful. We must make sure we identify the proper context here, to assure against hasty and/or self-serving conclusions.

Exodus 21:2-3:

"2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him." <-- Okay, this seems clear enough, if you are a purchased Hebrew, with a wife, you are both to go free in year 7.

Exodus 21:4:

"4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." <-- Here is where things start to look sketchy for the modern-day believer. If the slave is provided with a wife, and they have kids, the wife and kids are to stay with the slave master. They are not to go free.

Exodus 21:5-6:

"5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." <-- More uncomfortability for the Christian here. Without getting into the weeds, common sense suggests a special rule is made to trick the male Hebrew into remaining a slave for life.

Leviticus 25:44-46:

"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." <-- More awkwardness for the believer, as the Bible reader clammers to find a rationale to make this passage not read the way it does.

Here is a basic definition of chattel slavery --> "Chattel slavery is full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation"

Looks like all the ingredients fit the given Bible description here, minus the torture. Wait a minute, this is covered in the rest of Exodus 21. (i.e.):

"20 “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." <-- So basically, since the slave is your property, beatings with impunity are acceptable. Just don't kill them.

For debate:

By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery?

Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves?

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

Before you answer, consider this.... Since the NT does not mention the abolition of 'slavery', and yet the Bible makes further proclamation(s) and/or addendums (in favor of retaining 'slavery',) this means the Bible is not against chattel slavery either. Further, the Christian 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.'

[Falling Light 101]

Please allow me to eXplain what the EXODUS 21 verse actually says.

remember, the nation of Israel was set up that each family held upmost IMPORTANCE in maintaining and retaining and keeping their inheritance from generation to generation. This was a major importance - for the fathers and mothers from one generation to the next - passing along and to always have a home, land, crops, livestock and security for their children,

THIS IS WHAT THE ENTIRE CHAPTER IS ABOUT


.
The chapter is saying that if a Man { father } cannot pay his debts or if he needs to put his daughter and son to work to make money to help the family survive. - then IF he has a good place of safety for His daughter to go where she can be placed for a contract that can last for seven years if needed .
.
Then - The daughter can have a future with opportunity for a plan of freedom from her family debt and crisis and have a future of security. to maintain her family inheritance -----
.
Lets look at eXactly what Exo 21:7 is really saying in the original Hebrew manuscripts.
.
Exo 21:7 That a IF man is selling { CONTRACTING } his { Own } daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out { end the contract } as the other servants do.

Exo 21:8 I there is a problem in the eyes of the { Contractor } Boss in which He Has not Agreed that Her contract has been met or paid. { To pay off the Fathers Debt }

Then the Contracting of Her out to OTHER strangers among the people is treacherous and an evil transgression.

Exo 21:10 If he { the Father } takes himself another wife; the food, the raiment, and her marriage, shall not be lessened or withheld.

Verse 10 was saying that If a Father in debt has a daughter that If he takes Himself another wife after He knows His daughter is coming back home after she has ended her contract or if her boss is not satisfied fully with her performance or feels the debt is not paid due to whatever circumstance.

That the father while taking in another wife or taking in anyone else into His household, he shall not diminish the daughter's rights and clothing and the daughter's marriage potential, rights and abilities. { and overall basic rights. }

In other words - - The daughter always holds a heritage right and the right to get married no matter how much the father is in debt.

Exo 21:9 And if he { The Father } has contracted out a son, deal as in the manner of the daughters.

The Bible HERE was maintaining the Heritage and heirship and inheritance rights of the Children.
Saying that no matter the situation, the Father is always to honor His Children - Even If he can not pay His debts and the Children are unable to fully assist in paying off the debts, that the Father can not give his children to strangers - to be contracted out.

That's all it was saying in the Original.



There is nothing about marriage  concerning the daughter in the passage. 
The Hebrew word betrothed that the translators led You to believe was about marriage  -  This word simply means  ( AN  AGREMENT }  - Or Contract.

Please note that the word that the TRANSLATORS are claiming means that  a  BOSS or  Master  or  CONTRACTOR  has  betrothed   a daughter but This Hebrew word betrothed is always  used in "  ALL "  other places that have NOTHING to do with marriage.     NOTHING. 

 - and it is the   Hebrew - יעד -   yâ‛ad   /   yaw-ad'
Meaning to AGREE or fix upon a point of agreement  (by agreement or appointment); by implication to meet (at a stated arranged set time), To agree,
(make an) appoint ), set (a time.
it has nothing to do with MARRIAGE  - But it is not a special word that is applied to a man and a woman being  betrothed. 

But is used in ALL other places   EVERY SINGLE TIME - to mean an agreement of a contract or an appointment such as here in - Exo 25:22 - Exo 29:42  -  Exo 29:43  -  Exo 30:6   -   Exo 30:36    -   Num 17:4- God set up SET times and places for an appointments to agree to meet with Moses.
Also this word is used Here in Num 10:3  - Num 10:4  /  Num 14:35   /   Num 16:11  -    Num 27:3   -   Jos 11:5   - It means here that a Congregation and or  Kings  or Leaders agree to meet.
This word in your translation is  NEVER, NEVER  EVER once used again in the entire Translation to indicate a Marriage engagement.   The Translators  LIED,  This word is used over 35 times in the Old Testament.  Never Once  _  NEVER _ -  is it used to mean betrothed

This word that the translators claim is used to mean  betrothed  !  - they never, ever used this word ever again throughout their entire translation in any other verse, to mean betrothed.

This word is the word  -  " AGREED  " -   here in  Amo 3:3.
Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? 
The verse was simply discussing that the  FATHER  and the  Contractor  had an agreement plan.

The  FATHER  WAS NOT PIMPING OUT HIS DAUGHTER. 

[TRANSPONDER]

Very well, but what has that to do with chattel slavery of foreigners? It looks like the old ploy of taking something that isn't slavery, proving that it isn't slavery and misdirecting away from something that is slavery.

Poi's post 160 points out that the Hebrews who become slaves have all kinds of ways to get out of it under their law, but that doesn't apply to foreign slaves. They are bought, owned for life and passed onto children. They are property. Men women and children.

Now I have heard excuses that an owner may be nice to his slaves, treat them like family, even adopt or marry them. even if that ever happened, that is not what the Bible directs - it says buy slaves from foreigners, they are your property for life, and may be passed onto your children. The Bible endorses and condones chattel slavery for life of anyone but His people, and as POI says, they too may be tricked into becoming lifetime slaves.

If you want to argue against the Bible endorsing slavery, you have to address these relevant actual points, not about how a Hebrew who becomes a slave to a foreigner can get out of it or what Hebrew betrothal law meant.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm dumbfounded to observe an entire thread has been built on slavery in the Bible, and there's still someone fighting the good fight for it.

If there can be a dickering on if your god accepts slavery or not, the conversation is pointless. A simple "Naw now you knuckleheads, you cut that out" never made it to the Bible?

I prefer my omnialleverythingthereeverisandeverwas to be a bit more vocal about the not slaves having.

Religion... Clearly a man's attempt to justify his mistreatment of others. What are we gonna do, all gang up to defeat the slave god? I fear more the man who comes to me with such a story, selling me the way to salvation.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's a long and deep discussion Pal Joey and goes way back into American history back to the Founding Fathers and how by getting rid of Church support for regal rule, tey opened America up to 'start your own church' and culthink (not only religious) given a boost by the civil war, the red scare and the evangelical movement, ID pseudo science and insurance sales methods of peddling religion, right up to the snake oil faith healers, the tea party (still alive and well and denying elections) and is piggy -backing on american culture (which like it or not is sweeping the world, even in nations that profess to hate it) to peddle its poison globally.

Against this, secularism has far less resources. We are not funded by oil dollars, and rely on individual efforts, though it is much better than it was in the 80s when we had Farrell Till and Cliff Walker and that was it, no Dawkins, Atheist TV and the deconvert support groups (e.g Clergy project) that we have now (1). Make no mistake, the religious Right knows that the next election means it either has political control or never has it. We know that the respect for law and order mean religious (not secularist) law and order, just as Free America means religious, not secularist America. And the Constitution is the constitution as interpreted by Religious Right, not by those who see in it separation of church and State.

We know all this, though we may choose to pretend that we don't, but this is relevant - the methods of denial of what is so and rewriting reality to mean what is wanted is what we get in Cult -think and Bible exegesis, where slavery is ignored and they try to fool us with irrelevance about how Jewish slaves can wriggle out of it. How the clear contradictions of the Nativity and resurrections are excused, denied and in the end ignored. Just as with Politics, it is a question of who can get the ear of the public, vote for Reason at least or vote for a cult.

(1) Talk origins is a great thinktank for evolution, but I know of no similarfor Bible apologetics refutations. We apologists seem to have to do it individually.

[Falling Light 101]

.
thanks for the reply but there simply are no manuscripts for this Trinitarian Claim.

[TRANSPONDER]

.
thanks for the reply but there simply are no manuscripts for this Trinitarian Claim.

Ok, but again, what has that to do with slavery? The Bible condones and even endorses slavery. Since the 18th society has rejected slavery and is still pushing back where it still happens. Thus the world society has better morals than the Bible. I suspect that may apply also to the disposal of daughters by their fathers as property, even if he thinks he is acting in her best interests.

[The Nice Centurion]

It is NOT clear, that one can listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.... Why?

1. Leviticus mentions the "golden rule", while still providing instruction for chattel slavery. The specifics outweigh the generals. If God never mentioned slavery, then sure, 'golden rule'. Exceptions exist for the general rule. Chattel slavery was an exception made by God. Did Jesus agree with his dad here?

2. Jesus goes out of his way to mention many things to do, INSTEAD of just mentioning the second "greatest" Commandment-- (the golden rule). He goes out of his way to mention no stealing, no lying, no adultery, no murder, treat your mom with respect, and etc... Heck, he even emphasizes NOT to work on the Sabbath. But for some strange reason, even though many of these are all completely redundant, when compared to the 'golden rule', he leaves out "don't own other people as property"? --- Even though His dad provided instructions to do so in a previous book in which Jesus pledged allegiance to. I guess this topic was NOT important enough for him to issue a one-liner, even though it would end up being one the greatest recorded 'atrocities' in human history to date. I have to ask, is lying always a sin? More-so than owning another person? If not, why did Jesus mention lying, but nothing about chattel slavery? They BOTH apply to the golden rule, and yet Jesus goes out of his way to mention stuff, which appears trivial, in comparison. Again, a one-liner would have been sufficient.

3. Being that Jesus did not write anything to paper, and we are to rely upon oral tradition, how in the heck are we to know exactly what Jesus did and did not say?

If todays morality so abhors owning humans, why should that make Jesus and his friends feel the same.
Why should it be OK today owning animals and plants, but not people? Thats not logical.
Anyway-Jesus is said to have said to have come not to break the old laws, but to fullfill them.

Not even Joseph Smith dared to speak against slavery! No-He even had a Holy Vision from God, Who disclosed to him the inferiority of the Negros and Nigras and that became an important part of the Mormon religion.

[POI]

It is NOT clear, that one can listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.... Why?

1. Leviticus mentions the "golden rule", while still providing instruction for chattel slavery. The specifics outweigh the generals. If God never mentioned slavery, then sure, 'golden rule'. Exceptions exist for the general rule. Chattel slavery was an exception made by God. Did Jesus agree with his dad here?

2. Jesus goes out of his way to mention many things to do, INSTEAD of just mentioning the second "greatest" Commandment-- (the golden rule). He goes out of his way to mention no stealing, no lying, no adultery, no murder, treat your mom with respect, and etc... Heck, he even emphasizes NOT to work on the Sabbath. But for some strange reason, even though many of these are all completely redundant, when compared to the 'golden rule', he leaves out "don't own other people as property"? --- Even though His dad provided instructions to do so in a previous book in which Jesus pledged allegiance to. I guess this topic was NOT important enough for him to issue a one-liner, even though it would end up being one the greatest recorded 'atrocities' in human history to date. I have to ask, is lying always a sin? More-so than owning another person? If not, why did Jesus mention lying, but nothing about chattel slavery? They BOTH apply to the golden rule, and yet Jesus goes out of his way to mention stuff, which appears trivial, in comparison. Again, a one-liner would have been sufficient.

3. Being that Jesus did not write anything to paper, and we are to rely upon oral tradition, how in the heck are we to know exactly what Jesus did and did not say?

If todays morality so abhors owning humans, why should that make Jesus and his friends feel the same.

Are you then suggesting that Jesus was A-okay with chattel slavery?

Why should it be OK today owning animals and plants, but not people? Thats not logical.

So owning humans, as chattel slaves, is or is not okay? The Bible suggests that it is okay.

Anyway-Jesus is said to have said to have come not to break the old laws, but to fullfill them.

What is Jesus's position on chattel slavery (okay <or> not okay)? His "dad" seems to be okay with chattel slavery.

Not even Joseph Smith dared to speak against slavery!

Are you saying that both Jesus and Joseph Smith agreed with God(s), that chattel slavery is okay? Or, are you instead maybe saying they disagreed with God(s), but bothered not to express their own opinion? Even though they had no problem expressing their views on many lesser topics.

No-He even had a Holy Vision from God, Who disclosed to him the inferiority of the Negros and Nigras and that became an important part of the Mormon religion.

Interesting.... I have a question, unanswered in another topic I posed in another thread. ==> viewtopic.php?t=40778

Based upon the teachings of Mormonism, in the provided video below, do you too think that maybe someday, if you do enough of (this and that), you can maybe earn your own planet to rule, alongside a harem of women for your own personal enjoyment? Or, is this video below not really what Mormons think?

[POI]

Bumping this topic:

For debate:

By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery? I'd say yes.

Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves? I'd say yes.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Obviously, and the joke is that the apologists write long screeds about Israelite slaves or servants and how their rights were respected, when that is absolutely nothing to do with it. Of course the Hebrews were meticulous in how they were to treat other Israelite slaves or servants. No wonder they were to be let go after 7 years, unless they can be trapped into chattel slavery by giving them a wife and saying 'You either agree to total ownership, or you go; she stays, and the kids, too".

But that is nothing to do with foreign slaves which are property for life and can be willed to the children. They have few rights. It is property ownership and chattel slavery in the complete sense, and the NT does not fall over itself to say it is wrong to do it, though both New and OT know that the slave does not like being a slave.

It is quite instructive to see the ducking, diving, evasions, misdirection and fingers in the ears that Bible apologists do to pretend that Bible acceptance of slavery is not so. It is the exemplar of the 'Ghost Bible' where the apologist has in their head a Book that says what they would want it to say, not what it actually does say.

I'm also intrigued by the dogmatic shibboleths they seem to obsess over, as though that somehow explains something or anything. The talk of Trinitarians that we get from time to time makes no difference at all to what the Bible actually says.