"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.'

[POI]

I think that shows great ignorance and lack of 3D understanding. Firstly, a circle can be drawn to any 3D surface. Secondly, in the Bible earth means dry land, not the whole planet. Circle doesn't mean in any way flat surface, only that the edges of something were round.

Or maybe it instead suggests you drawing in the bull's eye around the dart, after the dart hits the wall.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think that shows great ignorance and lack of 3D understanding. Firstly, a circle can be drawn to any 3D surface. Secondly, in the Bible earth means dry land, not the whole planet. Circle doesn't mean in any way flat surface, only that the edges of something were round.

Or maybe it instead suggests you drawing in the bull's eye around the dart, after the dart hits the wall.

It does smack of trying to stretch a Biblical description of something that isn't true to something that is - unless one is a flat earthist.

[1213]

I think that shows great ignorance and lack of 3D understanding. Firstly, a circle can be drawn to any 3D surface. Secondly, in the Bible earth means dry land, not the whole planet. Circle doesn't mean in any way flat surface, only that the edges of something were round.

Or maybe it instead suggests you drawing in the bull's eye around the dart, after the dart hits the wall.

It does smack of trying to stretch a Biblical description of something that isn't true to something that is - unless one is a flat earthist.

Sorry, I think it is you who are stretching the description. At this point it seems stretching is the only way anti Christians have when they try to prove Bible wrong.

By what the Bible tells, if one remains just in what is actually written in the Bible, there is no intelligent reason to think earth is flat.

[1213]

...But to scribe out a flat circle and put a sky dome over it is smack in line with the cosmology of the time from..Egypt to Mesopotamia and the sun being made as an afterthought to trundle around inside the sky -dome fits the Babylonian Cosmology, where your idea of God scribing out a geographical region that was already there when the dry land of the earth appeared seems pretty pointless, doesn't it? It is merely an excuse to avoid the conclusion that the Bible describes an obsolete snowdome -cosmos by having God scribe a pointless circle on a round earth.

I think it is weird how people can think Babylonian cosmology and Bible are the same. The Babylonian version seems to be a very poor copy of what is told in the Bible.

By what the Bible tells, there was a planet covered entirely by water. And when God formed the dry land, which is called earth in the Bible, God first drew a circle around the planet and then stretched dry land over the water. And that set the conditions for the global flood that came when that original single continent was broken and sunk into the water below it. Signs of this circle around our planet are the mountain* ranges that go around the earth approximately on 120 east and 80 west meridians. (*mountains, or areas that are higher than surrounding areas)

...Luke says Jesus was taken up, in fact or in a vision...though of course Jesus would have to orbit the world and it doesn't say 'a vision' does it? So it is an excuse and an invented one, by you...

By what is told in the Bible, it is possible Jesus saw the things without really moving physically. And by what is told, the vision seems the most likely way. I think vision is the only way to see the "glory of kingdoms", it is not something that is physically visible from space, or high mountain.

[TRANSPONDER]

...But to scribe out a flat circle and put a sky dome over it is smack in line with the cosmology of the time from..Egypt to Mesopotamia and the sun being made as an afterthought to trundle around inside the sky -dome fits the Babylonian Cosmology, where your idea of God scribing out a geographical region that was already there when the dry land of the earth appeared seems pretty pointless, doesn't it? It is merely an excuse to avoid the conclusion that the Bible describes an obsolete snowdome -cosmos by having God scribe a pointless circle on a round earth.

I think it is weird how people can think Babylonian cosmology and Bible are the same. The Babylonian version seems to be a very poor copy of what is told in the Bible.

By what the Bible tells, there was a planet covered entirely by water. And when God formed the dry land, which is called earth in the Bible, God first drew a circle around the planet and then stretched dry land over the water. And that set the conditions for the global flood that came when that original single continent was broken and sunk into the water below it. Signs of this circle around our planet are the mountain* ranges that go around the earth approximately on 120 east and 80 west meridians. (*mountains, or areas that are higher than surrounding areas)

...Luke says Jesus was taken up, in fact or in a vision...though of course Jesus would have to orbit the world and it doesn't say 'a vision' does it? So it is an excuse and an invented one, by you...

By what is told in the Bible, it is possible Jesus saw the things without really moving physically. And by what is told, the vision seems the most likely way. I think vision is the only way to see the "glory of kingdoms", it is not something that is physically visible from space, or high mountain.

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. Time to chop up your drawing board. You will make a great atheist when you finally admit you have been making up excuses all along.

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? All God needed to do was draw back the waters and plonk Eden on whatever appeared. There is no reason to have a scribed circle on a global globe except to try to wangle what is a scribed circle as a prelude to a flat circle of the earth (which is what the Bible says - another thing where what it says isn't what it means) into a relating that to a round (oblate spheroid to the punctilious) which you can't take the step of denying.

The added nail in the coffin of your apologetic is that it fits the Babylonian cosmos -model perfectly but struggles woefully to be wangled onto your global earth. Another nail might be the early portolan maps which showed the known earth (before discovery of America) as ringed by mountains, a derived from the flat circle -world surrounded by mountains which contained the sluices of the fountains of the deep which supposedly enable the flood.

(1) the whole land -mass incorporates Eden which Gen.23. 10 14 which limits this area between Cush (Nubia) and Mesopotamia.

[POI]

Still continuing to see avoidance from the Chrisitan community...

It looks like theists have no argument(s) against the claims that the Bible can effectively be used to accomplish (2) tasks:

1) Sanction lifetime chattel slavery
2) Sanction the breeding of lifetime chattel slaves

If you object, please say so and also explain why? Otherwise, the silence will continue to be deafening. I've already laid down my case, pretty much unchallenged thus far.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is blindingly obvious that we are dealing with an ancient book that has a human worldview of a restricted global map (the old Hebrews didn't even know Mexico was there, never mind sailing there and building ziggurats) and primitive morals, like lifetime slavery was the thing anyone but Hebrews deserved.

[1213]

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.

[POI]

Status update: Please see post 33 of this thread (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 0&start=30)

Again, my position is the following:

The Bible can be used to support/condone/permit/accept both 1) chattel slavery as well as 2) the breeding of new deemed chattel slaves.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think that shows great ignorance and lack of 3D understanding. Firstly, a circle can be drawn to any 3D surface. Secondly, in the Bible earth means dry land, not the whole planet. Circle doesn't mean in any way flat surface, only that the edges of something were round.

Or maybe it instead suggests you drawing in the bull's eye around the dart, after the dart hits the wall.

It does smack of trying to stretch a Biblical description of something that isn't true to something that is - unless one is a flat earthist.

Sorry, I think it is you who are stretching the description. At this point it seems stretching is the only way anti Christians have when they try to prove Bible wrong.

By what the Bible tells, if one remains just in what is actually written in the Bible, there is no intelligent reason to think earth is flat.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter what you or I think, but what others think. Is a scribed circle more appropriate to a flat circular earth with a dome over it or to a circle scribed on a geographical are (from the horn of Africa to the Euphrates? Now you admit the 'circle'of the earth is not a description of a globe you have nothing but denial and dismissal. You still want to post a smirk?

Don't forget the description of the earth as a stamp on wax or clay with features standing out. Exact description of a circular, flat earth not to mention that snowdome cosmos was the general belief of the time.

At least we have this: the circle of the earth is not science in the Bible - it is (even if your case held weight rather than make it up as you go along denial) not evidence that the Bible is describing a globe, only a circle scribed on the globe. To that's one bit of 'science in the Bible' that fails, never mind daylight before the sun and grass before fish.