The Meaning Of The Bible

[jeremyp]

The passage as a whole is about the Israelites retaining possession of the land.
But no passage accepts slavery.

Any passage that regulates slavery without saying "don't do it" is accepting slavery and there are plenty of those in the Bible.

[Spud]

Any passage that regulates slavery without saying "don't do it" is accepting slavery and there are plenty of those in the Bible.

See my edit of last post. Slavery in the sense of war captives is part of the judgment on Canaan. Other than that, the Bible condemns it.

[Spud]

It does not allow kidnapping, or return of escaped servants, or harsh treatment.

[Roses]

It does not allow kidnapping, or return of escaped servants, or harsh treatment.

I am beginning to wonder if you have ever read the Bible! Harsh treatment is its stock in trade especially in the OT.

[jeremyp]

See my edit of last post. Slavery in the sense of war captives is part of the judgment on Canaan.

I suppose that's OK since the alternative was annihilation.

Other than that, the Bible condemns it.

No it doesn't.

[Spud]

I am beginning to wonder if you have ever read the Bible! Harsh treatment is its stock in trade especially in the OT.

Can you give some examples? I'll start off with Deut. 20:11, in which which most modern translations say cities that surrender would be subject to forced labour. You would be justified in interpreting this as harsh treatment,  however three literal translations (Young's, Smith's and Literal Standard) render it "they will be tributaries to you and will serve you". Not quite the same.

[Roses]

Can you give some examples? I'll start off with Deut. 20:11, in which which most modern translations say cities that surrender would be subject to forced labour. You would be justified in interpreting this as harsh treatment,  however three literal translations however (Young's, Smith's and Literal Standard) render it "they will be tributaries to you and will serve you". Not quite the same.

Assuming the Biblical god actually exists and what is written about it in the Bible is factual, it is an evil entity, that seems to enjoy human suffering. You appear to be making excuses for its barbaric behaviour and that of its Biblical stooges!

[Gordon]

At the time, the claim was underpinned by evidence. This is Rahab talking to the spies:
"We have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea a for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. b 11When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the Lord your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below."
Joshua 2

That doesn't necessarily prove it for us, but it does justify the ownership of the land of Israel by the descendants of Jacob (given to them by God), in the story at least.

It's an anecdote, Spud: not evidence.

[Spud]

Looks like John MacArthur disagrees with me. He says a slave is someone owned by another person, and so we should not be scared to translate 'slave' in those contexts.
A Christian is owned by Christ and thus is his slave. If you call someone Lord then you are his slave. When Jesus said no-one can serve two masters he was talking about slaves, not servants (since a servant can serve more than one master but a slave is owned by only one).
Link to sermon

[Roses]

Looks like John MacArthur disagrees with me. He says a slave is someone owned by another person, and so we should not be scared to translate 'slave' in those contexts.
A Christian is owned by Christ and thus is his slave. If you call someone Lord then you are his slave. When Jesus said no-one can serve two masters he was talking about slaves, not servants (since a servant can serve more than one master but a slave is owned by only one).
Link to sermon

It is WRONG to own anyone that includes Jesus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is WRONG to own anyone that includes Jesus.

Jesus is known in some christian circles as the servant king.

[Roses]

Jesus is known in some christian circles as the servant king.

Assuming Jesus existed, he was a very human guy with faults and failings just like the rest of us, that is clear from the Biblical accounts of his words and deeds.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assuming Jesus existed, he was a very human guy with faults and failings just like the rest of us, that is clear from the Biblical accounts of his words and deeds.

To what moral source or authority are you appealing to?

[Roses]

To what moral source or authority are you appealing to?

Ehhhhhhhhhh?

[jeremyp]

Assuming Jesus existed, he was a very human guy with faults and failings just like the rest of us, that is clear from the Biblical accounts of his words and deeds.

I disagree. The Bible accounts of Jesus suggest that he was executed but then came alive again. That's not a very human guy. Several of the Bible accounts claim that he is God, again, not characteristic of a human guy.

[Spud]

I suppose that's OK since the alternative was annihilation.No it doesn't.

If it prohibits kidnapping, then logically the foreign 'slaves' it refers to in Leviticus 25 must have been in that situation voluntarily or if the law had required them to be, for example if they were required to make restitution for theft.

[Roses]

If it prohibits kidnapping, then logically the foreign 'slaves' it refers to in Leviticus 25 must have been in that situation voluntarily or if the law had required them to be, for example if they were required to make restitution for theft.

You are trying to make excuses for the Biblical take on slavery!

[Spud]

You are trying to make excuses for the Biblical take on slavery!

If that were case, then I suppose I would be, yes.

[Roses]

If that were case, then I suppose I would be, yes.

Slavery is evil, any god which doesn't condemn it is evil too.

[Spud]

Slavery is evil, any god which doesn't condemn it is evil too.

I agree, but let's look at the passage again. Suppose we are the Israelites. We are the owners of the country. If one of us goes into debt, he can live with another one of us until the year of jubilee, when his debt is to be cancelled and he goes back to his property. There are some foreigners living among us who are allowed to own houses in the towns. If one of them goes into debt, he can also live with an Israelite, but the jubilee rule doesn't apply. If they want to remain in Israel, they have to be servants because they have no inheritance. This ensured that the land remained in the possession of the Israelites. If the foreign servant wanted to leave he was free to, as he couldn't be forced to return to his master, but was allowed to choose whom he wanted to work for.
There was no capturing and enslaving involved, unless he had committed a crime. It was equivalent to indentured servitude. I would compare it to the class system, where you have lower and higher class: it is no more evil than that.

[Roses]

I agree, but let's look at the passage again. Suppose we are the Israelites. We are the owners of the country. If one of us goes into debt, he can live with another one of us until the year of jubilee, when his debt is to be cancelled and he goes back to his property. There are some foreigners living among us who are allowed to own houses in the towns. If one of them goes into debt, he can also live with an Israelite, but the jubilee rule doesn't apply. If they want to remain in Israel, they have to be servants because they have no inheritance. This ensured that the land remained in the possession of the Israelites. If the foreign servant wanted to leave he was free to, as he couldn't be forced to return to his master, but was allowed to choose whom he wanted to work for.
There was no capturing and enslaving involved, unless he had committed a crime. It was equivalent to indentured servitude. I would compare it to the class system, where you have lower and higher class: it is no more evil than that.

Oh spud you have made all that nonsense up! There is never any excuse for slavery.

[Aruntraveller]

I would compare it to the class system, where you have lower and higher class: it is no more evil than that.

Except, of course, that the class system is pretty evil.

[Roses]

Except, of course, that the class system is pretty evil.

Agreed.

[Spud]

Oh spud you have made all that nonsense up! There is never any excuse for slavery.

It's actually there in leviticus 25, if you look: the land belonging to the Israelites, the foreigner living among them.  The passage does not describe slavery as we would define it.

[Gordon]

It's actually there in leviticus 25, if you look: the land belonging to the Israelites, the foreigner living among them.  The passage does not describe slavery as we would define it.

So how is slavery described in Leviticus 25?