What does it mean,

[Elijah John]

What does it mean, when some people say that "all Scripture is God breathed?

Does it mean that the Bible was dictated by God?

Inspired by God?

Does it mean that the Bible is perfect and infallible in every detail?

If you hold the position that the Bible is "God breathed" please define the term, and support your position.

[2timothy316]

Every word written in the Bible is God approved and thus can be trusted as coming from God.

Including the passage that gives permission for a slaveholder to beat their slaves half to death on the grounds the slave is the slaveholder's "property"?

Is Exodus 21.20-21 "God breathed" and approved as well?

I would think that a peaceful sect such as the Jehovah's Witnesses would disapprove of such practices.

Yes, Exodus 21:20-21 is 'God Breathed'. Exodus 20:1 "Then God spoke all these words:"

Who am I to disapprove of what Jehovah does or doesn't allow?
What is good or bad doesn't come from my opinions. I do not seek my ways. I seek God's ways. Yet have you ever heard of a JW beating their employees or owning a slave? Why do you think that is despite what you pointed to in Exodus?

Just because I'm commanded to being peaceful and follow it doesn't change the fact that I know that Jesus with God's army of angels is going to destroy the wicked of the earth. It is not my place to execute these folks or even have a say who is wicked or not. But this is His will and I will not disapprove of anything He sees fit.

So you are basically saying, (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the institution of slavery is part of "God's way", including all the connected brutality thereof?

And you're not the least bit uncomfortable with that notion that God supposedly approves of the keeping, and the beating of slaves?

How bout this...verses such as this are evidence that the Bible down to it's very last detail, is not "God breathed" and "God approved" at least not in it's entirety.

It just amazes me that instead of conceding tha the Bible is NOT perfect, and that every single word in the Bible is not from God, Fundamentalists attempt to defend the indefensible.

And your post here is a prime example of that.

Let me put it this way...how can it be that the same God who teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves and to treat others the way we would like to be treated, would EVER approve of threating our fellow human beings like "property" up to and including depriving them of God-given freedom, and beating them half to death?

And how could the Same YHVH who despised slavery in Egypt, approve of slavery in Israel?

As I am sure you have had this discussion many times with others so I'm only going share two things. What people shouldn't do, one being, assuming that the Bible can't be trusted because they don't approve of how He handled the nation of Israel. The second is that "For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope." - Rom 15:4.

If one can accept these and examine all things as 1 Corinthians 2:15 says, then that person will start to understand more about Jehovah then they ever thought possible. But if they get hung up on their own justice they will never grasp what it is that God is trying to 'instruct' us so that 'we might have hope'.

If one can't accept these things, then they should just keep going their own way like the majority of people. The ways of the God of the Bible will always seem foolish to him. (1 Cor 2:14) A person that seeks to understand God's ways loves Jehovah their God with their whole heart, whole mind and whole soul.

If He allowed slavery and punishment back then, then who are you or anyone to challenge it? All we can do is try to understand why He did. How does it 'instruct' us for our benefit? The Law code was not mankind's salvation and it was not meant to be the law for humans forever. Just think, even if you don't think that what was written in the Hebrew scriptures as right or a lie, Jehovah still let it happen. There is no record of Jehovah stopping it. Anything to the contrary of what the Bible says, means you're making up your own history with no collaborating historical record.

My suggestion is to study the Law of Moses. Why it was made and what was it's ultimate purpose. Also what it wasn't. By looking into these subjects a person will be 'examining all things'.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by 2timothy316]

Couple of things. I'm not "making up my own justice" but rather using Bible priinciples to refute a certain passage of the Bible. The Bible does contradict itself, as has been demonstrated on this site many times, and in many ways. And where the Bible does conflict, the tboughtful person is compelled to to choose sides, the more reasonable or the more barbaric. In attempting to defend the indefensible, seems Fundamentalist Evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses, choose the more barbaric passages, and interpretations.

2nd, why do you treat the Bible as entirely from God, when it was compiled by humans? If you start with the assumption that the Bible is perfect, doesn't that inhibit your ability to look at it truthfully, and objectively? Especially in light of evidence of the imperfection of the Bible?

You speak as though the Bible dropped in tact from Heaven, perfect in every way. You KNOW that's not how it happened.

3rd. Do you think it's wise to use the Bible and this debating platform, (not a preaching site) to call people who disagree with you "unspiritual" and "foolish" simply because they do not view the Bible as you do?

Are we humans sinful just because we question certain parts of the Bible? What makes you so sure?

Is slavery one of the" spiritual things of Christ", that we foolish ones just don't understand?

Are you saying that only sinful people who hate God question some portions of the Bible?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

As I said, there are answers to every what seems like a contraction. The personal question is, are those answers satisfactory to you? Are you a 'must see to believe' type person? If so, then everything you see me belief will seem foolish.

I also know that a person of the flesh will not accept the Bible as truth. They will say things like, 'How can you say that about the Bible?' Also, proceed to tell me what I 'know'. They will also make it seem like the Bible are my words. Jehovah destroying the wicked are not my words. (Psalm 37:10, 11) It's not a threat it's a promise. It's not my promise nor will it be carried out by me. And if you want to know why someone would even say these words then I'd suggest reading the book of Jonah. He told a whole city that they were going to be destroyed for their actions. How did they respond and how do you respond?

If you wish to sanctify God's name why do you attack His Word? Do you realize that you're not making God seem holy but like a buffoon that can't even get a simple book the way He wants it? Have you considered what Jesus meant when he said to Perter, "you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.� (Matt 16:23).

The fear of God is the key to understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)

Proverbs 2:5 says, "if you accept my sayings And treasure up my commandments, By making your ear attentive to wisdom And inclining your heart to discernment; Moreover, if you call out for understanding And raise your voice for discernment; If you keep seeking for it as for silver, And you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of Jehovah,And you will find the knowledge of God." From those that don't think the Bible is the Word of God, I see no seeking I see only accusations.

Do you know that if you follow the scripture above and 'accept his sayings and treasure His commandments' you will find the knowledge of God? Do you want the knowledge of God? Does your heart stick up it's nose to such a notion as what Proverbs 2:5 says? Do you understand that when you start to pick and choose what you will accept in the Bible, the knowledge of God will never be attainable?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by 2timothy316]

So, those who don't consider the Bible to be perfect, and those who don't agree with you, are persons "of the Flesh" who don't understand "Spiritual things"? "Spiritual things" like the beauty, benevolence and joyousness of the institution of slavery?

Was slavery ordained by God?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 13 by 2timothy316]

So, those who don't consider the Bible to be perfect, and those who don't agree with you, are persons "of the Flesh" who don't understand "Spiritual things"? Things like the beauty, benevolence and joyousness of the institution of slavery?

See there's that wording again. As if everything in the Bible are my words. No one has to agree with me. They have to agree with Jehovah despite their man-type thinking.

Was slavery ordained by God?

Ordained, no. Allowed, yes obviously. There is no commandment in the Mosaic Law that one must own slaves. There is nothing in the Bible that says slavery was Jehovah's decree. Only what can and can't be done to them. Slavery was already established by the time the Law Code was written. Apparently Jehovah didn't see fit to abolish slavery at that time. So what are you going to do? Does this stumble you away from Jehovah?

[Overcomer]

There is a great deal of misunderstanding on the topic of slavery in the Ancient Near East and I want to address that. Since the issue has been brought up in this thread, I will post the information here, but if the moderators feel it should be elsewhere given the OP topic, I'm fine with my post being moved.

Generally, today, we think of slavery the way it existed in the American South and the Caribbean of the 18th and 19th centuries. However, if you do a study of the institution and of the word down through the centuries, you will find that, in many of cases, slavery was nothing like that in the New World. Such is the case with slavery in Biblical times.

In the case of the American South, slavery was not voluntary. Slaves were kidnapped from Africa and brought to the United States to provide free labour that made plantation owners rich. Compare this to the Middle East in biblical times. Slavery was, for the most part, voluntary. If a person owed someone money, he could hire himself out as a servant to the person to whom he owed money until the debt was fully paid through labour. This is the kind of slavery that the Bible is speaking about.

Look at it this way: Today we have government welfare programs to help people who are poor for whatever reason. In the Ancient Middle East, there were no such programs. The institution of slavery offered people an opportunity to avoid poverty. That was the purpose of it in the nation of Israel.

So let me reiterate two things. First of all, a person entered into slavery of his own free will for financial reasons. Secondly, societies offered the opportunity of slavery to people to deal with poverty so that all might have enough to eat and a roof over their heads. Back then, the word "slave" didn't carry the negative connotations that it does for us today. In fact, it's probably better if we use the word “servant� or the term “someone who entered into service� to describe slaves of the biblical era.

A slave in the American South was a slave forever most of the time. Occasionally, one might be freed by a benevolent master or he might run away to Canada. However, an Israelite could walk away from his position as slave at any time for a number of reasons. For example, if a family member or friend paid the debt on his behalf, he could leave the household in which he was working. While slaves in the American South owned no property and earned no money, an Israelite slave could own property and was free to work for money for someone else while serving as a slave. This meant that he could earn enough to pay his debt and leave the household.

And then there was the year of Jubilee which decreed that in the seventh year all slaves were to be set free as stated here:

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. (Deut 15.12f)

What I think is neat about this is the fact that, not only was the slave to be freed, the person he was working for was to give him gifts to start him off right in his new life.

So servanthood in Israel was only temporary. And sometimes, slaves decided to stay in the household in which they had been serving. We read this here:

"But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' (Ex 21.5)

But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, (Deut 15.16)

In some cases, slaves came to be part of the family so that, even after the debt was paid or they had the means to support themselves on their own, they chose to remain.

In the American South, slaves were treated brutally. In Israel, there were strict laws about how one treated a slave. For example, we read the following

Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.43)

But you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Lev 25.46)

He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly. (Lev 25.53)

Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do. (Deut 15.18.)

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished (Ex 21.20, NIV)

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27).

A man could also sell his children into service. Why? To ensure their economic well-being. It is much the same as apprenticing one’s child to a tradesman in today’s terms. Like the word “slavery�, the word “sell� carries a negative connotation for us. However, bear in mind that the word in Hebrew did NOT carry the connotations we give the word today. As I said, we would use the word “apprentice� rather than “sell�. That’s how the people of that era understood it. Again, slavery was all about dealing with poverty and creating an economically stable society.

Lastly, it was not God’s will that there be this poverty leading to slavery. If people followed his will, they would share what they had and help each other unselfishly and with compassion thereby eradicating the need for such servant-hood. We see this here:

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. … There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." (Deut 15.7ff)

Unfortunately, people didn’t follow the above command from God, thereby making the institution of slavery an economic necessity. It was implemented by men, not God. God took what men devised and directed them in their exercise of it. God, knowing that people would sin in this, set down rules to protect slaves and ordered the year of jubilee that people might not have to remain slaves forever.

So that is, in a nutshell, what slavery of an Israelite to another Israelite entailed.

It was different for foreign slaves. There are two situations in which non-Israelites could become slaves. The first is outlined in the 20th chapter of Deuteronomy where it talks of how to deal with captives of war. Let me quote Glenn Miller of A Christian Thinktank who explains it well:

The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.

But the scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its inhabitants would be put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city was attacked and destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves.

Miller notes that this type of slavery amounts to serfdom, not slavery in the American South sense of the word.

The second type of foreign slave is one that voluntarily enters into service the same way an Israelite did for the same economic reasons, that is, he owed a debt or needed to make a living. We read this in Lev. 25:44-46:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life."

Right off the bat, the wording becomes a problem for people. There’s this idea of buying and selling and property. But again, what isn’t stated outright in the text but was understood by the people to whom God was giving these laws is the fact that this slavery was usually voluntary. A foreigner in Israel could enter into service to support himself. If an Israelite needed workers, he could go to a neighbouring country and buy them. In other words, he could make it known he wanted workers and people could say, “I am ready, willing and able to enter into service to you� and did so. A foreigner living in Israel could also enter into service if he owed a debt to an Israelite in the same way that an Israelite could enter into the service of someone to whom he owed money. Let me state again that this was a way of dealing with poverty and establishing economic stability.

There were some differences between how Israelite slaves and non-Israelite slaves were treated simply because Israel was God’s chosen nation (meaning he had chosen it through which to implement his plan of salvation). The main difference lay in the fact that the non-Israelite was not given his freedom in the year of jubilee as stated here:

"At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother (fellow Israelite) owes you." (Deut 15.1-3)

Therefore, a non-Israelite could remain in service for his entire life if he never paid off his debt or was never able to make a living any other way or, on a happier note, became a beloved member of the household and chose to stay with people who had become like family to him.

Additionally, if a foreigner prospered, he himself might be in a position to have slaves. So he could have a slave while being a slave himself. We see that here:

"If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself" (Lev. 25:47-48, KJV).

Note the phrase "he sells himself". As I said, we are talking about voluntarily taking a position in someone's household or business for economic reasons.

Interestingly, the Israelites were to welcome runaway slaves from foreign lands. We see that in Deut. 23:15 which reads: "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you were ever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress them"(NIV).

Now we come to the issue of beating a slave as noted here:

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is NOT to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two" (Ex 21:20, NIV).

This verse does not say that God ordered people to beat their slaves. All it does is establish a penalty for someone who beats a slave to death.

Look at it this way: Here in Canada, if you steal something worth less than $200, there is a specific penalty to be paid. If you steal something worth more than $200, the penalty is much harsher. In making these provisions, lawmakers are not ordering people to steal. They are only accepting the fact that some people will steal and they are providing guidelines as to how to deal with people who have erred in this manner.

That's what God is doing in this verse from Exodus. He is the lawgiver stating the penalty for someone who has killed a slave. He isn't saying, "Go ahead and beat your slaves". He's saying, "IF you beat your slave to death, here's what the penalty is." And, as I said earlier, it's God's will that slaves NOT be treated ruthlessly, but be treated well.

Also bear in mind that, just as there is a prohibitive element to the laws in our society today, there was also one in the laws that God established in Israel. The idea was to dissuade people from doing something wrong in the first place because of the penalty involved. Therefore, it is a misunderstanding and a misuse of this verse to suggest that God ordered slaves to be beaten. That’s reading something into the passage that isn’t there.

C. S. Lewis spoke of chronological snobbery, that is, the idea that people living in the Ancient Near East should live their lives according to modern beliefs, practices, and sensibilities. It's wrong -- and unfair -- to look at the world of the Old Testament and expect them to handle things the way we do in a Western Society in the 21st century.

For more information, see here:

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 15 by 2timothy316]

Ordained or allowed, fair enough. Do you see any difference with what the Bible authors may have tolerated, and what God tolerated? Why do you equate the two, in each in every verse?

And still, If you are going to charge people who don't consider the Bible perfect, as "people of the flesh" and "unspiritual", does that include "Spiritual" things like slavery?

Do you consider slavery a "spiritual thing of God"?

Are those of us who question the supposed toleration of slavery by God, "of the Flesh" and "unspiritual"?

Do you think it is a good witness for Jehovah to tie Him in any way to the institution of slavery, except to repudiate it?

Do you suppose you are winning any converts to the Watchtower, by defending slavery? By defending the indefensible?

Is it your personal opinion, or the opinion of the Watchtower that slavery was once OK with God? Is it still OK with God?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 15 by 2timothy316]

Ordained or allowed, fair enough. Do you see any difference with what the Bible authors may have tolerated, and what God tolerated? Why do you equate the two, in each in every verse?

There must have been a difference. The Law didn't allow for the killing of slaves or maiming of slaves. Apparently, this was a problem before. Also, there was a provision that person could buy themselves back. Apparently, people back then would keep a person longer than Jehovah thought acceptable.

So here's some questions for you. If you are really having such a hard time with slavery, then what do you think about what happens today or what has happened for the past 3000 years? Look at all the bad things that people do. Why does Jehovah allow all the horrible things happening today to continue? Because He allows them to happen, are all of these things ordained? If you're having a hard time with slavery back then, is it a mind blower for you to see what God allows now?

[2timothy316]

Do you think it is a good witness for Jehovah to tie Him in any way to the institution of slavery, except to repudiate it?

Who am I to say what Jehovah wants as a witness? He makes those determinations. Apparently at that time, He found it acceptable that people tied to Him could own other people. That's all there is to it. Does this too stumble you?

Now is slavery acceptable under the Law of the Christ? The principle is clear, it exhorts humans to treat others the way that they would like to be treated. (Luke 6:31)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 10 by Elijah John]

We "approve" of slavery as practised 3000 years ago by faithful Jews under the Mosaic Law for the for the period during which that law was in force, since it was regulated by that Divine Law. And of course all JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are willing and happy to be slaves of God.

( Although someone with faith would understand it to be presumptuous to speak of "approving" any of God's actions)

JW