"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.'

[TRANSPONDER]

We seem to have added another 'what it says isn't what it means' argument plus making stuff up. Luke says Jesus was raised up for a weather -balloon's view and for Matthew a mountain - top will do. You ignore what it says and invent something not in the Bible to make what doesn't work, work. ...

Sorry, I think that is not true. Don't you think, if Bible is wrong, it would not require anti Christians to lie to prove it is so?

Likeyou excuse about a circle drawn around the (Global) earth. I'm not sure whether the supercontinent figures in this (1) but I suspect you regard the Rockies and Andes as one part of the 'scribed circle' and the Himalayas as the eastern part? Where is the scribed circle and why would it be needed? ...

That is what the Bible tells happened. Probably God thought it is the best way to do it.

The added nail in the coffin of your apologetic is that it fits the Babylonian cosmos -model perfectly...

In that case it seems you don't understand them at all.

Keep going anyone reading will see clearly the faithbased denial, and the self contradictory pot -kettle accusations. Hoo boy.

Your confused first defies translation. If the Bible is (arguable and demonstrably) wrong, then of course one would expect the faithbased believers to do everything to try to save it, which is what I see you doing. Using several methods, faithbased denial being the second. 'If the Bible says so, that is how it happened', if you can work out whether the sun was really made after the daylight (and there was a fine denial of what the Bible Actually Says - morning and evening, day and night) or whether there was a cosmic light that was switched on and off to imitate daylight before the sun was made. Say again - you may think stubborn denial scrapes you a draw if not gain a win, but Believers must look and wonder "Do I sound like that?"

The appeal to 'not understanding' is faithbased denial. The Babylonian snowdome - cosmos is well known. The Biblical descriptions fit them perfectly. Give me a passage - any passage - you think describes a round earth rather than a flat circular one, and I'll show how it fits the Babylonian cosmos better.

Jesus seeing all the kingdoms from a high vantage point. The earth supported on pillars. Anything. Which means you have nothing. You may think it leaves your Faith intact (but when you deny demonstrable fallacy in what the Bible says, of course it will) but it at least means that there is no science in the Bible,

Think it through - if the Circle of the earth was so clearly a globe having on nothing, why was the earth considered flat with a dome over it for so long? Even after the Greeks worked out it was round, the old Medieval maps still thought of a flat - circular - map earth (with Jerusalem in the middle) and a ring of mountains around it. Classic Biblical flat circular earth with mountains supporting the sky done.

Everything seems to fit the sky dome reading better than the globe. You haven't opted for a flat earth at least for which we may be truly thankful, but this only shows that Bible apologetics is political or rather polemical - they deny 'science', but only as far as where people will start to laugh at them.

[1213]

The Babylonian snowdome - cosmos is well known. The Biblical descriptions fit them perfectly.

Sorry, I have not seen any intelligent reason to believe that, probably because I know what is said in the Bible.

Jesus seeing all the kingdoms from a high vantage point. The earth supported on pillars....

I think it would be useful to know that in Bible, "earth" means dry land, not the whole planet. And in the beginning there was only one continent that was on top of vast water area. It can be possible there was then also pillars of earth. Nothing of it means that planet earth is flat, especially when Bible speaks of mountains.

Think it through - if the Circle of the earth was so clearly a globe having on nothing, why was the earth considered flat with a dome over it for so long?

Probably because people liked the Babylonian idea and didn't really think what is said in the Bible.

Everything seems to fit the sky dome reading better than the globe. You haven't opted for a flat earth

Nothing of the Bible supports flat earth. But, the sky can be seen as dome, even if it is something that surrounds a sphere.

But, this doesn't mean that I claim planet is a sphere. It may be as it is in the UN flag.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #202]

You are wasting everyone's time. What you 'see' or refuse to see is irrelevant. Aside from the hint that you might even be tempted to suppose the world IS flat, your excuse that the sky looks like a blue dome even on a round earth only confirms that people thought it was a dome, when it wasn't.

Translation -shopping for 'earth' is irrelevant. Circle of the earth, even if one supposes it was and area on the present map means that it is NOT saying the earth is a globe. The argument was always that the ancients believed a flat circular earth (all of it) and since the Bible description fits that, there is no case, no matter what you want to believe, to claim predictive science in the Bible. At least you seem to concede that chwug (variously pronounced, it seems) does mean a scribed circle as if flat even if done on a globe. Others in the past have ignored that or in case professes incomprehensibility.

I still need to run the stamp -seal image by you. Yes - Job 38:14
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.

Isn't that a clear image of a flat (and circular) earth? All the incidental evidence is for a flat, circular earth as was the common cosmos of the day and no science in the Bible.

Though I forget how we got here from slavery. I had intended to counter a claim of recompense for a slave that was presented as disproving slavery. Chattel slavery is what it is even if Exodus etc try to make it fair treatment. But in fact those fair dealings appear to apply only to Hebrew slaves. They do not cover foreign slaves. Though the point seems to have long been passed by.

[Mae von H]

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.

Where did the US make provision for American citizens sold into slavery to be by law freed after so many years? Which set of laws is superior?

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.

Were any Americans allowed to go at any point in time? With or without family?

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.

Here is where you dishonestly disregard the idea that the text says a man might love wife and children. In order to accuse God of wrong you imagine a man needed to be “tricked” into loving his family, How does one “trick” a man into loving his family? This is where your evaluation is dishonest. But it won’t take much on my part to convince anyone else that some men actually freely do love their families and don’t want to leave them.

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.

Ah no, your evaluation would be more believable if you dropped these supposed feelings we who are educated have. Educated people know that slavery has been common for millennia. Same as harems, multiple wives, war, tyranny and other evils. The laws governing slavery in the Old Testament, despite being millennia before, are vastly superior to US slavery laws. Slaves in the US could only have wished the Americans had adopted the OT laws.

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"

That does not describe OT slavery but it does describe US slavery, which the Democrats defended to the death.

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.):

Untrue. Citizens were released after 7 years. Slaves had some rights in Israel, not the US.

"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.

I guess the recovery in a day passed you by. How hard can a beating be if the victim is completely recovered the next day? Hummmm.

For debate:

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

Please answer how the British, the Americans, the Africans, the Dutch and other nations literally sanctioned, captured, sold and profited from slavery? Notice the Israelites never captured slaves nor were they slavers. Talk about sanctioning!! Having slaves is not sanctioning slavery per se. But carpturing and making a living selling slaves is.

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

Please show where Israelites bred and sold slaves! You choose words that are untrue. You need to educate yourself on the slave trade and which nations sanctioned slaveryy
************************

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.'

This is so ignorant it’s hard to believe. The Romans were running the world and you expect those few powerless Christians would “abolish” slavery. I mean the Europeans and Americans fought tooth and nail to keep their slave traders in business. The Americans would rather die than abolish slavery. And a really horrible slavery. But in England the Christians worked hard to end slavery. It took a long long time but the Christians made it illegal…because of the New Testament which you just do see

[POI]

Before we begin, I have to point out that your entire starting point is off. Way off. My point is that God sanctions lifetime chattel slavery. I am not comparing it to the US, or any other set of human laws. God's law is supposed to be THE standard, not just a standard that proves to be a "little better" than the ancients of our time. Kapeesh?

Mae Where did the US make provision for American citizens sold into slavery to be by law freed after so many years? Which set of laws is superior?

POI See above. Further, as I told you elsewhere, there is a difference between indentured servants and lifetime chattel slaves. The Bible sanctions both.

Mae Were any Americans allowed to go at any point in time? With or without family?

POI Again, see above. My point here being that the women and children were not to go free.

Mae Here is where you dishonestly disregard the idea that the text says a man might love wife and children. In order to accuse God of wrong you imagine a man needed to be “tricked” into loving his family, How does one “trick” a man into loving his family? This is where your evaluation is dishonest. But it won’t take much on my part to convince anyone else that some men actually freely do love their families and don’t want to leave them.

POI Remember what I stated, "without getting into the weeds". Most slaves were not literate. And even if they were, likely did not know the Bible like the back of their hand. When many sign for a house, a car, a lease, a work contract, etc, do we always read all of the fine print? No. Does this mean we are not still held liable for our agreements? And you honestly think these slave owners fully disclosed all of the fine print before engaging these servants? Of course, if you are given a wife, and you have kids, you are not going to abandon them at year 7, are you? Well, duh! You would be quite callus to do so.

Mae Ah no, your evaluation would be more believable if you dropped these supposed feelings we who are educated have. Educated people know that slavery has been common for millennia. Same as harems, multiple wives, war, tyranny and other evils. The laws governing slavery in the Old Testament, despite being millennia before, are vastly superior to US slavery laws. Slaves in the US could only have wished the Americans had adopted the OT laws.

POI Again, please see above. Further, God had no problem abolishing all sorts of stuff he did not like, whether or not they were going to continue doing it anyways. So, apparently, lifetime chattel slavery was not one of them. He was instead a-okay with it...

Mae Untrue. Citizens were released after 7 years. Slaves had some rights in Israel, not the US.

POI Remember what I stated above about endured servants AND lifetime chattel slaves... The lifetime chattel slaves were not allowed to go free.

Mae I guess the recovery in a day passed you by. How hard can a beating be if the victim is completely recovered the next day? Hummmm.

POI Nope. It didn't. Whipping them on the back side was the preferred method of beating. Why? The slave was their money. They still need them to work. Whipping them assured maximum productivity. Like with livestock. Killing them would be counterproductive. They probably only hurt them worse when they were no longer deemed useful, like being too old, too sick, too injured, etc. In which case, the Bible states you can set them free if you knock out their eye's or teeth.

Mae Please answer how the British, the Americans, the Africans, the Dutch and other nations literally sanctioned, captured, sold and profited from slavery? Notice the Israelites never captured slaves nor were they slavers. Talk about sanctioning!! Having slaves is not sanctioning slavery per se. But carpturing and making a living selling slaves is.

POI You did not answer my question. Can the Bible be used to sanction/condone/allow lifetime chattel slavery, yes or no?

Mae Please show where Israelites bred and sold slaves! You choose words that are untrue. You need to educate yourself on the slave trade and which nations sanctioned slavery

POI I already did above. Not all read the fine print. Further, I'd reckon if the deemed lifetime chattel slaves were to have kids, they were not allowed to go free either.

Mae This is so ignorant it’s hard to believe. The Romans were running the world and you expect those few powerless Christians would “abolish” slavery. I mean the Europeans and Americans fought tooth and nail to keep their slave traders in business. The Americans would rather die than abolish slavery. And a really horrible slavery. But in England the Christians worked hard to end slavery. It took a long long time but the Christians made it illegal…because of the New Testament which you just do see

POI I did not realize God was powerless against Rome? Didn't God abolish other laws for which Rome deemed legal?