Sheshonq

This is utterly unbelievable.

So it's your contention that the young children of slaves taken in war were being rehabilitated? Then why don't we continue the practice today? When we have a war, why don't we take people prisoners as a humane way of rehabilitating them?

Your crack example is nonsense - unless you have evidence that the prisoners of war (or non-Hebrews purchased for slavery) were in the similar state.

1. Slavery meant forced servitude, less than adequate conditions, and no way out. If you think it was such a good deal, then why did they have to shackle the slaves?

2. People were quite able to find their own food and make their own way in life. And if not, then they were free to voluntarily sell themselves for a fixed period of time into indentured servitude.

Slavery is not a kindness - and all your attempts to rationalize this and avoid admitting an unpleasant truth about the bible are not going to work.

Why not? You just got through claiming that these slaves were apprentices; clearly you beileve they were learning some kind of useful trade. Apparently you don't realize the ramifications of your own arguments.

It doesn't really matter; experience in other cultures and other times says you're wrong. Liberated slaves do find a way to stay alive, even if it takes a decade or a generation. And ultimately, a parent would rather raise their child as a free person on meager bread, than consign that child to a lifetime of servitude at someone else's hands.

Except that it did not do so. These slaves did NOT go out during the Jubilee. You don't know what you're talking about.

sugarhitman

This is where common sense come in (which most humans have).


Also why am I debating you about this? It's no secret that Muslims despised the Jewish bible so naturally......

Sheshonq

Which doesn't answer the question at all, so I'll ask it again:

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?

Sheshonq

IF you had any common sense, you wouldn't believe in National Enquirer nonsense like Russian scientists digging up skeletons of giants.

No derails. If you think the KJV has mistranslated this word, prove it. Otherwise, you lose and we can all go home now.

Lógos Sokratikós

Oh so now we should say "the Hebrew bible condoned fathers selling their daughters into 'bondmanship' "? I don't know about you but that doesn't make it sound any better. BTW, "bondman" is not a Hebrew word, it's English, so you just traded a translation for another!

Call it "slavery" or call it "noodle", it's still an evil.

Johnny Skeptic

In the NASB, Deuteronomy 23:15 says "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee." That will not do because non-Hebrew slaves who wanted their freedom should not have had to try to escape. They should have had the same rights at Hebrew slaves had. Surely unsuccessful escape attempts resulted in punishment of some kind.

Consider the following parts of Leviticus 25:46:

KJV - ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

Obviously, the writer believed that involuntary slavery of a Hebrew for life was severe, ruthless, and harsh, but not regarding involuntary slavery for life for a non-Hebrew. That is adequate proof that non-Hebrew slaves were mistreated.

Here are the complete verses:

KJV - 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.

NASB - You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you take your bondmen always, but over your brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

The texts clearly show that there were two standards of treatment, one standard for Hebrew slaves, and another standard for non-Hebrew slaves. There is no doubt that the writer of the verse considered forcing Hebrews to be slaves for life to be unacceptable, and that he considered forcing non-Hebrews to be slaves for life to be acceptable. The writer obviously considered involuntarily forcing a Hebrew slave to serve for life was rigour, KJV, severe, NASB, ruthless, NIV, and harsh, The Amplified Bible. On the other hand, he obviously approved of involuntarily forcing non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life.

sugarhitman

Also may I add that this argument that implies that slaves could be whipped and not freemen not according to Deut.25: 1-3 Freemen if guilty of some act could be beaten as well.

Sheshonq

Wow. You confused yourself again. Nobody in this thread ever made such an argument.

Keep flailing around, though.

Johnny Skeptic

I know, it is downright comical. Sugarhitman does not even have basic reading skills. Or, he does have basic reading skills and is trying to divert attention away from the fact that Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom, and non-Hebrew slaves were not guaranteed their freedom.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: Please reply to my post #446, all of it.