"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]

back then it was either that a person would become a slave willingly to pay off debt, or they would be captured from enemies.

Ooooooh, so when you read Leviticus 25:44-46. this instruction was only intended exclusively for prisoners of war?

[TRANSPONDER]

So this is the thing about slavery in the Bible. We as 21st century Americans see slavery based on race, back then it was either that a person would become a slave willingly to pay off debt, or they would be captured from enemies. We can also see that God does not like unrighteous slavery, pharaoh was drowned for it.

That's brilliant - brilliantly wrong. Race as such was not the issue, but being foreign was. As a Hebrew you could buy a slave for life and that is absolutely chattel slavery. There was a Biblical rule that you couldn't do this to a Hebrew slave (hired servants were not slaves) unless you could trick him into it by giving him a wife and he wasn't willing to leave her and the kids - because they were slaves For Life. And if he stayed, so was he.

It is blindingly obvious that lifetime slavery was chattel slavery and was Totally Different from indentured servitude. As to unrighteous slavery...it was quite clear that it was bad and God supposedly didn't like it if it was done to his people (unless he arranged it, of course) but if they enslaved non Hebrews, the God of the Bible was fine with it - because the Bible OT was written by Hebrews. And I doubt that the Exodus even happened, let alone Pharaoh's chariots being swamped in the Red Sea.

[TRANSPONDER]

back then it was either that a person would become a slave willingly to pay off debt, or they would be captured from enemies.

Ooooooh, so when you read Leviticus 25:44-46. this instruction was only intended exclusively for prisoners of war?

Leviticus 25. 38 I am the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilerly.
41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


The persistent misrepresentation and cherry - picking of this passage never ceases to amaze and is the best example of a phenomenon I noticed quite early on - the Ghost Bible where it is claimed to say such and such when it actually says something else. And we already heard that that it must be 'Interpreted' in the Spirit which means that what it says isn't the point, what they want it to say is the point. I'm not saying All. Some just invent stuff:

Mary Magdalene never went into the tomb (actually she did so that's rewriting what the Bible says - just as does Luke with the angelic message.

The Mary's split up so that one saw Jesus and the other didn't. They both saw Jesus and taking different routes is really reaching.

And proposing a lost scripture with Babes and sucklings as misquoted by Jesus. This is Too obviously 'it must be true - so any excuse will do'. But it goes further - the Bible itself can be made to look like a dogs' dinner, trashed and discredited (e.g a Flood that isn't Global and so shatters the Bible claim of why God had a Flood at all) so long as they don't have to admit that they are mistaken. I am convinced that it is all about their self pride. And I won't pursue the twisty trail of the one - shot win, why they cannot allow it and why they suppose we fear it as much as they do.

[POI]

So this is the thing about slavery in the Bible. We as 21st century Americans see slavery based on race, back then it was either that a person would become a slave willingly to pay off debt, or they would be captured from enemies. We can also see that God does not like unrighteous slavery, pharaoh was drowned for it.

That's brilliant - brilliantly wrong. Race as such was not the issue, but being foreign was. As a Hebrew you could buy a slave forlife and that is absolutely chattel slavery. There was a Biblical rule that you couldn't do this to a Hebrew slave (hired servants were not slaves) unless you could trick him into it by giving him a wife and he wasn't willing to lever her and the kids - because they were slave For Life. And if he stayed, so was he.

It is blindingly obvious that lifetime slavery was chattel slavery and was Totally Different from indentured servitude. As to unrighteous slavery...it was quite clear that it was bad and God supposedly didn't like it if it was done to his people (unless he arranged it, of course) but if they enslaved non Hebrews, the God of the Bible was fine with it - because the Bible OT was written by Hebrews. And I doubt that the Exodus even happened, let alone Pharaoh's chariots being swamped in the Red Sea.

Thus far, I'm quite disappointed in the lack of responses from Christians in this thread. So far, we have:

1213 - Quotes the 'golden rule', as if this absolves the specifics, or "the proper guide to slavery ownership, via YWHW".

JayLev - Parroting old apologetics talking points, which do not address the debate questions.

The rest, have remained silent. And the silence is becoming more and more deafening.

[TRANSPONDER]

I appreciate our pal having a go, especially as it shows up like a searchlight falling on a bunch of escaping prisoners, how even the best efforts to camouflage the fact of rubberstamping slavery in the Bible is undercut by that one damning passage.

Legreeticus 25. 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."

There is an Atheist Axiom - once you have had the trick explained, you won't be fooled by it again, no matter how often they perform it. The apologist for Biblical slavery has to rely not only on ignoring that damning passage but hoping that others don't know it, too. Now they know why we atheists talk about what we don't believe in - because they won't.

But you point up an....point....dead silence. Are they thinking; questioning? They should be. Are they trying to come up with an answer or frantically phoning round the pastors for answers?They won't come up with anything better than our pal has done. Is it the deep Dive until they resurface in a fortnight, having washed their brains out with the Blood of The lamb and have dismissed any doubts they may have had? Yeah, I'll place a Pascally wager on that.

[JayLev]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

Yet you don’t have any proof to disprove the exodus. The thing is, the Bible does not permit the slave trade you were just talking about. The historic holy way, was the way I listed.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

Yet you don’t have any proof to disprove the exodus. The thing is, the Bible does not permit the slave trade you were just talking about. The historic holy way, was the way I listed.

No, I can't 'disprove' the Exodus, but I can query and counter whether it really happened. The point being, you can't use it as evidence to convince me, even if it disproved Biblical slavery, which it doesn't. There are some reasons to doubt, you know. And the Bible does permit buying and keeping and bequeathing of lifetime slaves, chapter and verse, no matter your denial.

[POI]

Yet you don’t have any proof to disprove the exodus.

I created a new topic for discussion (viewtopic.php?t=40622). Now, let's get back on track.

The thing is, the Bible does not permit the slave trade you were just talking about. The historic holy way, was the way I listed.

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?

Please stop skipping my responses, and answer the questions candidly. You know, like someone did as early as post #2.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Is there some number of slaves I could have, before God gets upset?

First I would need to know, are you a Hebrew?

For purposes of this discussion, let's say I'm half Hebrew.
...

Thanks, but now I would need to know, what does that mean? What do you think a full Hebrew is?

Let's say the maternal unit isa Hebrew and the paternal unit is other.

[1213]

...
Is there some number of slaves I could have, before God gets upset?

First I would need to know, are you a Hebrew?

For purposes of this discussion, let's say I'm half Hebrew.
...

Thanks, but now I would need to know, what does that mean? What do you think a full Hebrew is?

Let's say the maternal unit isa Hebrew and the paternal unit is other.

Ok, I hoped an answer to question what is a Hebrew generally. If you don't know what the Bible tells about the matters you asked, it is difficult to think you are a Hebrew. It seems to me that you think a Hebrew is a person who can own slaves, nothing more, and it is interesting.

But, maybe my question was not well formed, and this would not go anywhere, so I just go the other questions you had.

1) Is there some number of slaves I could have, before God gets upset?
-> By what I know, Bible doesn't give a limit.
2) What if I dressed my slaves in a poly/cotton blend? Which of us is in trouble? What if I only allowed them to eat shellfish? Which of us hasta shovel coal in Hell?
-> I don't think there is punishment for that. But, why would you do so, if you are going to live by the rules in the Bible? I hope you are not a hypocrite that takes only the parts you like from the Bible and ignore the rest. Also, if you are a some kind of Hebrew, why would you believe there is hell for eating shellfish?
3) Or worse, what if I buy me a bunch of slaves, only to find out they're a bunch of homosexuals? Do I get a rebate for these defective slaves? Must I stone them, or can I hire new slaves to kill the gay slaves I couldn't get a rebate on?
-> You have to ask rebate from the dealer. Why do you think you would have the right to judge anyone to death?
4) What if one of the slaves is a woman, and she has her the unmitigated gall to speak in church? Is that a stoning, or do I cut her tongue out and let her go free?
-> Why would it be stoning, or tongue cutting? How could your slave even go to speak in Church, if you are a Hebrew?
5) Does God answer the prayers of slaves? What if a slave prayed to be free - but ya know, without all that eye damaging and the ear pulling off and stuff?
-> I believe God answers to the prayers of slaves, for example because Jews got freedom from Egypt.
6) What if I took the pastor to be a slave? Is there anything there that's gonna get me in trouble?
-> Where could you buy a pastor? I have not seen them on the market.

I think the problem with slavery is not really the ones who buy, but the ones who sell. I think it is interesting that Bible says people should not sell their people. If everyone would obey that, no one could buy them.

And while you are on the market, I think you should check are the merchandise kidnapped, because:
Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:16