Amaleq13

They clearly do not. The former condemns stealing the slave of another while the latter condemns specifically stealing Hebrew slaves.

You can only steal the property of another and both of these passages are, therefore, referring to humans who are the property of another.

Humans who are the property of another are, by definition, slaves.

Neither passage prohibits the notion of owning another person so neither passage prohibits slavery.

Your "bottom-line" simply has no validity.

Berggy

I dont see the word "slave" in Exodus 21:16, nor do I see the word "slave" in Deuteronomy 24:7.

Hmm...am I going to listen to you, who says that those two passages speak of slaves, or am I going to let the Bible show it myself? Hmm, the Bible, not you.

Irrelevant, those two passages dont speak anything about slaves or those human being of being genuine property. It speaks of the thiefs trying to sell them like property, hence, slavery, hence, condemned, hence you are wrong.

The validity of my arguments are clear - you just dont want to see it. I have shown how the BIble condemns slavery, but does "not" condemn indentured servitude. You, and the rest of the advocates out here keep saying that it does, but you dont show it is so and then you point and me and what Im saying as simply being wrong, but you have no justification to do so.

Quite simply, your just believing what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence at hand. Fine, do so, I cant stop you, I can only show what the Bible says and the Bible says exactly what I have presented to you.

Let me give you a little hint "Just because you 'say' the Bible says something, doesnt change the truth of the matter that the Bible clearly says the opposite of what your saying regarding this subject"

Good day folks.

Amaleq13

You see reference to a prohibition against stealing, right? That involves prohibiting the taking of property belonging to another. Understand?

You see a specific identification of the property as humans, right?

Humans that are the property of others are slaves.

Both passages clearly and undeniably refer to slaves by definition rather than by actually using the word.

It prohibits the theft of property, the sale of stolen property, and even possession of stolen property.

It says absolutely nothing against the original ownership of the property.

Berggy

I beg to differ. It is talking about kidnapping someone and then selling them off as a slave, even though they were "NOT" such to begin with, because your also ignoring the context of the word for "man". It is the Hebrew word "iysh" and it means a man as an "INDIVIDUAL". It makes no reference to being a slave.

Therefore, we see that it means kidnapping and selling that person off as a slave, period, or forcing them to do labor, period. It has "nothing" to do with stealing someone that is a slave already.

So, once again, your "assumption" and "out-of-context" view of these two passages are not what the Bible states. Slavery is condemned, indentured servitude is not.

I have nothing more to say on this regard. The evidence speaks for itself. If you still contend that I am wrong, even though your ignoring everything that Im showing, then lets have a formal debate about it and let the evidence of my argument and the supposed evidence of your arguement speak for themselves.

JEST2ASK

15:1 At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts ...OK
(2) Every creditor who has lent only to his neighbor shall release it ... (3) Of a foreigner you may require it .... Hmmmm (12) If your brother a Hebrew man or a Hebrew women ....

Leviticus 25:39 And if one of your breathern who dwells by you becomes poorand sells himself to you, you shall not compell him to serve as a slave (40) as a hired servant and sojourner he shall be with you


(44) And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations that are around you from them you may but male and female slaves.... (45) and they shall become your property (46) And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you ...

sorry did not read far enough all this is covered ...

seebs

I think it's true that there's a difference between an indentured servant and a slave, but the Bible also makes clear allowances for taking people into full chattel slavery, at least in the OT.

The general rule is that you can only hold non-Hebrews as chattel slaves, but for instance, if an indentured servant has married one of your other servants, and he would go free, but he wants to stay with his family, then he becomes a chattel slave, and his kids after him, forever.

Anat

The Hebrew uses the same words for all forms of servants. Defining some instances of 'eved' as non-slave already depends on interpretation, and is a manner of explaining away the immorality of a law code that acknowledges the ownership of a person by another. Show me how the Hebrew differentiates between 'servant', 'bondsman', 'slave' and whatever other term the various translators of the Bible used. Servitude is servitude. However nicely you want to dress it, it is a form of slavery. What you are doing is using distinctions between social institutions from one culture in another.

Where the heck do you see anything about children of non-Israelites going free at any time?

Why the hell not? Slaves could own property in that culture, and in many others. But this ownership was at the consent and whim of the master. And what they really did not own was their time (but as much as their masters allowed), nor did they control their status with regard to their families.

Oh, come on! When the Torah wants, it makes different laws for Israelites and others, see for example Deuteronomy 15:2-3:
"And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release that which he hath lent unto his neighbour; he shall not exact it of his neighbour and his brother; because the LORD'S release hath been proclaimed. Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it; but whatsoever of thine is with thy brother thy hand shall release."

And Deuteronomy 23:20-21:
"Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it."

In summary, although Torah law places some limitations on methods by which slaves can be acquired and places some limits on the degree of cruelty allowed towards a slave, it does not condemn the ownership of one person by another, and in some situations specifically allows *permanent* servitude.

You also fail to address the situation of the Hebrew slave that is forced to leave his family behind if he is to regain his freedom, a situation which cannot be characterised other than a form of blackmail.

Krusty

I agree that Exodus 21:16 doesn't sound to me like it is talking about the kidnapping of slaves. But it certainly does not condemn slavery either (your bottom-line). All it is saying it is that you can't kidnap someone as a way to get new slaves - it says nothing at all to condemn getting new slaves from the spoils of battle or getting new slaves from the offspring of existing slaves. Assuming slaves were valuable at that time, I can see how nasty (clearly a relative term) folks would be tempted to just "cheat" and get slaves for selling through kidnapping, this law only condemns that - not slavery itself. Your bottom-line is a false bottom.

hatsoff

Well, it's just dandy you feel that way, but it seems you're the one missing the point. In response to your interrogative title, no, the Bible does not clearly oppose it. In fact, all the passages you've quoted have been used in the past to justify slavery. But in the end the Bible doesn't specifically condone or condemn slavery as an institution. It does, however, instruct men to treat other men with kindness and love, which is usually agreed to preclude enslavement.

There is a case to be made that the Biblical passages touching on slavery are inappropriate and misleading--qualities not indicative of an inerrant work--but you have yet to show that the Bible supports slavery explicitly or implicitly when taken as a whole.

Berggy

The word "ebed", itself, is used for all the terminology concerning the different forms of servants, yes, but it is the "context" in which it is used that defines the variation of servitude that we are talking about and that is exactly what I have shown you.

Your mis-understanding resides within the fact that the Israelites never bought young kids as slaves, in Leviticus 25:45, the Hebrew word for "children" is "ben" and it means a son, like a builder of a family name. It can point to younglings, yes, but it is never the case when concerning contracting servants. I have never seen a case within scripture where you can absolutely prove that a child was lawfully being sold into slavery.

Even more so, when an Israelite bought a female servant, indentured, that is, and he betrothed that servant to his son, then the servant became family and therefore, they would not be a servant any longer - Exodus 21:9. This would also appy in the reverse as well. This would also mean that the children that are born from that union would not be indentured servants, but family.

The reason as to why not is because all the money that the slave would have made in regards to anything that the slave might do would belong to the master, for a master puts a slave to work to benefit the master and his family. This is why it is not so in the Bible. True slaves, with whips at their backs and being dragged around in chains do not have this luxury, nor the right according to their "status".

The limitations are specifically as stated. They are not allow to kidnap/steal/take people and make merchandise of them and/or sell them, which constitues the basis for true slavery. They are allowed to go to these people and buy them as servants, which, after six years of service, are released from being a servant as their debt was released and/or fulfilled.

The situation as what your describing, as mentioned in Exodus 21:1-6 is not what your making it out to be. Its only fair that you take what you brought into a situation like this. The Bible explains it perfectly. Just because a servant marries his/her master's children doesnt mean that just because you go free that you take them with you.

However, there is also no cause to believe that the wife and children wouldnt, "on their own accord", leave the master to go with the servant upon the release of his servitude. The point is simply that just because a servant goes free, doesnt entitle his wife and children to go with him because he just got free. There is a difference.

This address your contention perfectly.