Dr Rick

Thank you, but I've read your claims that the Bible says something that it does not. Please let us know if you can come-up with some other argument.

Johnny Skeptic

Did God kill babies at Sodom and Gomorrah, and the firstborn males in Egypt, or did they survive?

Berggy

They were not "enslaved", they were indendured servants as I have explain by all the context presented.

Your comparing apple to oranges and completely twisting the meaning of the scriptures. The entire point of Exodus 21:1-4 is that just because the servant is released from their debt, that doesnt automatically mean that you go with your wife and kids. However, there is nothing stopping the woman and the children from voluntarily going with the servant when he leaves, if he wants to that is.

Your trying to say that he has to choose between not serving that family and losing his wife and kids or staying with the family with his wife and kids and losing so-called freedom. Its not the same.

There is a difference, whether you care to admit it or not. With modern society standards, a slave is what is promoted to be a slave, with whips, chains, beatings and everything else thrown in for good measure. The servants acquired by the Israelites were "NEVER" treated that way, because if they did, they would have to release their servants as stated by Exodus 21:26-27.

This is where the context of Exodus 21:16 comes into play. Slavers take away by theft, in one form or another, either by kidnapping or simply forcing someone to be under their control, whether they like it or not, that persons freedom and then try to make money off of them. This is condemned in this passage and there is simply no way you can get around it.

Therefore, since its obvious condemnded here, that means that all the other passages, when it talks about servants, could "not" be referring to to slaves, but indentured servants, for if they were, then this would mean they were flagrating violating this law and therefore, they were all to be punished by death. This proves that slavery is condemned and indentured servants are not. Case closed.

How can you possible state that this is talking about slave marrying a slave?

Exodus 21:4: If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or duaghters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

The Hebrew word for "wife" "ishnah nahshiym" and it means simply a woman, it gives "no" indication of being a slave already. You explicitly state that this is speaking specifically "only" about slave VS slave and you have no evidence to say so. In fact, evidence is to the contrary because there is no limitation being placed on the wife. There is nothing being said that the wife and the children could not, on their own, go out with the servant.

It is saying that the servant couldnt, "himself" take the wife and children with him because he didnt bring the wife and children with him into the servitude relationship with his master. There is a difference and therein lies your error.

Johnny Skeptic

If the Biblical passages touching on slavery are inappropriate and misleading, then no one should trust the Bible. You obviously don't. The title of this thread is 'Does the Bible clearly oppose slavery?' The Bible obviously does not clearly oppose slavery, but if it is word of God, it ought to.

Numbers 31:13-18 say "And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

That does not compare favorably with what you said that "It does, however, instruct men to treat other men with kindness and love, which is usually agreed to preclude enslavement." You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Dr Rick

The Bible distinguishes the indentured servitude of Israelis from the enslavement of non-Israelis. Leviticus 25:39-43 makes it clear that Israeli indentured servants cannot be made slaves:

And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.

That they were "brought out of the land of Egypt" refers to Israelis. But a whole different set of rules applies to non-Israelis; Leviticus continues, and in 25:44-46 tells us that those that are not Israeli can be made into slaves:

And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

Joan of Bark

Question for Berggy. If the Bible clearly distinguishes between slaves and indentured servants, why do so many Bibles translate the Hebrew word as 'slave', which has a definite meaning in modern society? Are you claiming that modern Biblical translators (who are invariably believers) are incompetent (unlike you?).

Berggy

Because they would not let the Bible define itself. A single word can make all the difference in the world when you trying to find out what a particular passage/verse means, especially when you have to let the context of several other verses define a specific verse.

Example; take a look at Luke 14:26. Most people, namely those who dont believe in the Bible would say "See there! This is horrible! You cant love your mother or father and still be a Christian! I dont want any part of that!". The thing that people dont realize is that the Greek word for "hate" is the Greek word "miseo" and it does mean to hate something, to find something detestable. However, it also has another meaning and that meaning is to "love less".

Therefore, you can see on how something can easily be construed to be something different when its not. God requires full service if your going to worship him, but there is no case not to have love or affection for you mother or father, its just that they cannot take the place of your God. You have to be willing to risk everything in order to serve the Gods of the Bible, but loving your parents is never frowned upon, for that would be a violation of God's Law. You cant honor your mother and father if you hate them.

Anat

No, it is you who is twisting the meaning of the text in order to launder it. The text very clearly states that a motivation to become a permanent slave, physically marked for this status, is a wish to remain with one's wife and children. Why would such a situation arise if the woman is free to go? Clearly all the laws regarding marriage, rape, premarital sex and adultery indicate that until marriage a woman is the responsibility of her father and from then on, of her husband. The scenario you propose of a freeborn woman for some odd reason not joining her freed husband, so that if he wishes to maintain his marriage he has to become a permanent slave to her father makes no sense in the context of biblical views about marriage. Married women do not have that kind of choice, they are part of their husbands' households. A woman cannot initiate a divorce, which is what your scenario requires.

But they could be beaten almost to death with immunity. Or best - beaten to slow death.

What about war prisoners? They would not be considered stolen. They would be legitimate spoils. And the foreign-born slaves? There is no reason to think they were not purchased at a slave-market.

Boro Nut

I have to own up and admit you may have hit the nail right on the thumb. Unfortunately this now leaves you in the uncomfortable position of having to eat humble pie and agree with me.

Boro Nut

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Berggy: Numbers 31:13-18 say "And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Now are you going to tell us the God was behind those atrocities?

If the Bible was more clear about slavery, and a lot of other issues, the world would be a much better place in which to live.