They shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to sschlicter: Consider the following Scriptures from the NIV:

Item 1

Exodus 21:2-4

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Item 2

Leviticus 25:44-45

"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, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Item 1 is about Hebrew slaves, and it shows that Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom without paying anything.

Item 2 is about non-Hebrew slaves since it mentions slaves from "the nations around you," and "temporary residents......and members of their clans born in your country......." "You can.......make them slaves for life" means that non-Hebrew slaves were not guaranteed their freedom like Hebrew slaves were, and that the option of freedom was up to Hebrew slaveowners, not to non-Hebrew slaves.

Some texts state that a Hebrew who killed a free Hebrew was put to death, and that a Hebrew who killed a slave was not put to death, only punished. That was wrong.

Originally Posted by Equinox

Perhaps, Andrew, realizing that slaves are property makes this clearer. ANY rape situation requires at least one death, maybe more. But you can't "rape" property. Therefore this is not a rape case, it is the case of damaging or inappropriately using property. So the penalty is not death, but a lesser punishment.

I think that with that background, the law makes more sense.

Equinox

Originally Posted by sschlichter

here is the word used. In deut 20:11, it is used in the context of a word that means pay tribute. Ie, they will pay / work for tribute as all serfs do. You see the same word used of a free man in the context of a King. He is a servant, a slave of the King.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

H5647
‛âbad
aw-bad'
A primitive root; to work (in any sense); by implication to serve, till, (causatively) enslave, etc.: - X be, keep in bondage, be bondmen, bond-service, compel, do, dress, ear, execute, + husbandman, keep, labour (-ing man), bring to pass, (cause to, make to) serve (-ing, self), (be, become) servant (-s), do (use) service, till (-er), transgress [from margin], (set a) work, be wrought, worshipper.

Originally Posted by Strong

4522
mac {mas} or \hsm'\n mic {mees}

from H4549 TWOT - 1218; n m


AV - tribute 12, tributary 5, levy 4, discomfited 1, taskmasters 1; 23

1) gang or body of forced labourers, task-workers, labour band or gang,
forced service, task-work, serfdom, tributary, tribute, levy,
taskmasters, discomfited
1a) labour-band, labour-gang, slave gang
1b) gang-overseers
1c) forced service, serfdom, tribute, enforced payment


From H4549 properly a burden (as causing to faint), that is, a tax in the form of forced labor:--discomfited, levy, task [-master], tribute (-tary).

Originally Posted by sschlichter

normally, you would use the context to determine which sense of the word is used. of the possible uses of that word, you will likely ignore ALL of them except 'to enslave' like serve, work, keep, bond-service.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

All of these are possible meanings and you need to use the context to figure out which one fits.

Originally Posted by Exciter

Damn! That word is all over the place.


That's nice but, the word in Deut 20:11 using your method:






Why shouldn't we use what it actually says?

So the context of Deut 20:11 says that the people will be forced laborer serfs and not forced laborer slaves... what's the difference?

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

That word that the NIV incorrectly uses (ruthlessly) doesn't even fit within the context which is about the LENGTH OF TIME non hebrew slaves could be kept not saying they could be abused.

Originally Posted by Exciter

That's insteresting. I have never seen rigour/rigor used to mean LENGTH OF TIME, except in use maybe with rigor mortis.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Okay we have a law that says that foreign residents could not be oppressed. Would not forced slavery constitute oppression? (please answer this). These laws you keep posting is about buying slaves who sell themselves and not forced. So is it 1. These two laws contradict each other or 2. This shows that this was voluntary. (which is it? i want to know). That word that the NIV incorrectly uses (ruthlessly) doesn't even fit within the context which is about the LENGTH OF TIME non hebrew slaves could be kept not saying they could be abused.

And also This argument that a Hebrew could kill slaves is a lie here is what it says: "If a man smite his SERVANT or his Maid, with a rod, and he die; he shall surely be punished (it doesn't say exactly what that punishment is) Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished (thats because it was not intentional)." Note: this law covers all Servants how skeptics reads this as concerning Non Hebrew slaves is beyond me (fault hunting leads to things like this).


"But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to kill (murder) him with guile; thou shall take him from my altar, that he may die."

That covers all men and not just Hebrews.


So how did you get Exodus 21: 20-21 to cover Non Hebrew slaves only? (I can't wait to hear this).

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The difference you ask? Exciter you should know better.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The difference is they were allowed to remain in their own land, having their own kingdom with a measure of self autonomy vs becoming personal slaves or serfs.