Amaleq13

Yes, the prohibition is against creating new slaves by force but it does not prohibit owning people. As others have pointed out, kidnapping is only one way of enslaving another and it is the only way that is prohibited by the passage.

A "servant" one owns as a piece of property is a slave.

The passage shows that creating slaves by kidnapping was a prohibited practice.

Slaves taken subsequent to losing a war were also "genuine slaves" but ownership of them is not prohibited by the passage.

Dr Rick

There are a variety of creative ways to avoid addressing the cognitive dissonance that inevitably arises from desperate attempts to maintain one's faith in Biblical contradictions.

Of course, this rationalization completely fails when one realizes that the Old Testament wasn't written in Greek, and that no such disparity in translation has been offered to explain away the clear distinctions between the treatment of indentured servants and non-Hebrew slaves offered in Leviticus.

And if you're a slave, He also requires full service to your master.

Berggy

Exodus 21:16 explicitly comdemns the practice of taking people, involuntarily and selling them off as a slave. The context is generic - there are no specifics. Therefore, it must be applied to all. Slavers do exactly this. They take people and force them to either work for them and/or sell them off on the black market. This practice is condemned.

Therefore, since this is speaking about slavery, the all the passages contained else-where, specifically, Exodus 21:1-11, Leviticus 25:45-46, could "not" be talking about the slave trade, else we would have a contradiction. Thus, those things that are mentioned within this passages can only be talking about indentured servitude and not slavery.

Even more so, when speaking about foreign servants, to acquire them, as stated by Leviticus 25:45-46 states for the Israelites to do with the heathen nations around them could not have been on the slave trade, for they must have made sure that the servants that they needed were not a part of those mentioned in either Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7, but could only be those who were indebted to someone else and therefore, in order to have that debt paid off, the Israelite people paid the people who the servant owed the debt to, to have that servant work for them. This allowed the servant to pay off the debt to those who they owed it to.

Even more so, since Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7 specifically condemn slavery, then all other indentured servants would have to be treated accorded to the Laws prescribed in the Bible to those servants, such as Exodus 21:26-27, which show that the servants were not to be allowed to treat their servants brutally and lawfully get away with it.

Even more so, the question has been raised that even though Hebrew servants would obtain their freedom, foreign-born servants would not. However, the answer lies within Leviticus 25:10. The year of jubilee is the year of liberty, which is the Hebrew word "deror" and it means freedom. Even more so, this passage gives "NO DISTINCTION" between a Hebrew or Foriegn-born servant. It states "ALL" the inhabitants in the land.

So there you have. I have shown accordingly what the Bible states about slavery and servitude. If you choose not to believe it, then you believe in accordance with what you wish to believe, but not in accordance with the facts.

Case Closed.

JoshuaL88

Berggy, it seems to me that you are saying that of all the bible translations that have taken place, only you are interpreting the passages correctly and that everyone is mistaken. But why is that? Anat has said that he is well versed in Hebrew, why wouldn't his interpretation be any less wrong than your's? How is it that his in error when he bases it on what he has read in the original language while you are reading a bible that was translated and interpreted already (and most likely by the same people you have accused of not letting the bible define itself)? Are you somehow divinely inspired?

In response to your objection that the bible could not possibly be talking about anything other than servant after Exodus 21:16 is rediculous. The slave trade (as defined by yourself as taking/stealing people from their country/home and selling them) in the US was banned in 1808(?) but I doubt any rational person would say that African Americans from 1808 to 1864-65 where anything but "indentured servants". Just because you are not taking people as slaves (which, BTW, the Israelites did AFTER Exodus many times so they had a steady supply of bodies) does not define the people you have in your ownership as "indentured servants".

Dr Rick

If we start with the assumption that the Bible is consistent, as Berrgy does, then the only logical conclusion that can be reached is the exact opposite of what Berggy tries to argue: Leviticus clearly permits slavery, therefore, Exodus can not prohibit slavery.

Of course, we don't need to make an assumption about Biblical consistency to know that Exodus 21:16 prohibits stealing a man (ie. kidnapping), not slavery. Berrgy's claims are merely a transparent attempt to conflate kidnapping with slavery. And we can just as easily see that Leviticus distinguishes between the treatment of indentured servants and non-Hebrew slaves. The foolishness of Berrgy's claim is all the more apparent as he tries to explain away the meaning of the verses in Leviticus: Berrgy can't offer an argument against what Leviticus actually says, so he tries to fall back on the absurd claim that it simply can't mean what it says because Exodus means something other than what it says. It's just a pathetically bad argument.As bad as Berrgy's reasoning is, his argument only gets worse when he tries to explain Deuteronomy 24:7, because here he merely offers a falsehood. The verse:

"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel [emphasis added], and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."

...clearly addresses the treatment of fellow Israelis, not non-Hebrew slaves.

Again, it's just a pathetically bad argument.

Johnny Skeptic

This is really quite simple. If a man is forced to serve someone against his will, no matter how well he is treated, he is slave, and he has treated unfairly. No only does the Bible not clearly oppose slavery, any competent historian knows that Old Testament Jews and New Testament Christians forced people to serve their against their own will. Yes, there is such a thing as voluntary servitude, but only an ignorant and naive person will claim that the Bible does not allow and endorse involuntary servitude. Since Berggy believe that God is always fair, he will misinterpret what is clear to anyone who has even a modest amount of common sense. It is well established that God is not always fair. For example, God frequently refuses to protect women from rapists, and he frequently refuses to protect people from being injured and kill in automobile accidents that are not their fault.

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."

Killing women and children is immoral. In addition, regarding the women who were taken who had not slept with men, surely some of those women were taken against their will.

Christians lose no matter what because God knew in advance that for about 1800 years, the majority of Christians would believe that the Bible condones slavery but refused to show up in person and tell Christians that slavery is wrong, and knew that if he showed up in person and told Christians that slavery is wrong that most of them would have opposed slavery. The same goes for colonization and the subjugation of women. If the God of the Bible exists, he could not possibly have anything whatsoever to lose by being more helpful to humans, and if he was more helpful, the world would be a much better place in which to live.

Anat

The specification is in the word 'steal'. There are ways to acquire slaves that do not involve breaking this law. One is prisoners of war. We know spoils of war were taken and were not considered theft. Also, this does not prohibit crossing the border to acquire a slave from a foreign trader, who is not bound by the law.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: If God were mentally incompetent, how would he act any differently than he acts now? The correct answer is, not any differently at all. No mentally competent being helps AND kills people who love him.

Flyboy

There is this from ecclesiaticus which is canonical in the Catholic Church.

Gundulf

Forgive me if I'm importing a different discussion here - but I feel compelled to ask - on what basis do you suggest that slavery is such an immoral thing? There are obviously lots of cultures and societies that didn't have much problem with it.

I don't disagree with your assessment of its immorality, of course, just wondering...