The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't say that.

It does, you just ignore or reinterpret Exodus 21 7

[quo]

First, because these are your standards. Previously you objected to a lenient interpretation, and objected to making assumptions. I'm playing by your rules. If you want to change those rules, that's fine; but that cuts both ways. Are you going strictly by the text or not?[/quote]

I have always gone by the text. I am not the one changing the rules.

All of this is perfectly fine. The distinction you have identified is Hebrew compared to non-Hebrew. You use the words "the others". So, I respectfully refer you back to what you said:

Where does this idea come from?

You just confirmed that the rules are different based on being Hebrew compared to "the others". In-group vs. out-group. I said:
her
If the slave is "in-group", the rule is freedom after 7 years maximum. Where is the context which introduces ambiguity in this?

It can't be coming from Leviticus 25:44-46 which discusses the non-Hebrew slave. Here again it clearly distiguishes between the Hebrew compared to the non-Hebrew slave.

I am on a tablet right now so these excessive breaks are rather distracting. The proper phrase is " some slaves" when it comes to females. The Exodus 21 verse is when a father sells his daughter. It is for life, though there are a few exceptions. It does not openly state it but it appears that she is slated to be a sex slave, or concubine if you wish. And the "you break her, you own her" rule seems to apply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, believe what you want to and I'll do the same. I read what it says too. Thankfully, I don't believe that the bible is the have all end all truth. There is a lot of truth outside the books of the bible.

And I feel much the same way. It is quite often just a book written by people with the flaws that one would expect in such a book. Slavery in the Bible is only a problem for the overly literalistic.

 

[F1fan]

I live my life without owning slaves. I wouldn't own anyone. I wouldn't hang out with people who did so. That being said, I am a 21st century American woman. I am a product of many things, including that mindset. It's easy for me not to own slaves, but it's harder for me not to inadvertently support slavery in some cases though I try.

What cases would slavery be acceptable, and supportable? Your statement here really opened a can of worms.

 

[Kathryn]

If there is a such a list, then I would submit that they are people who have a vested interest in the Moses of the Bible being an actual real person.
There is no evidence for Moses outside the Bible, which is where the claims about him are. And there is no evidence whatsoever for the exodus story.
Which is how we tend to view anyone mentioned in history, when we don't have any good evidence for them actually existing. Like King Arthur, for example.

A history of oral traditions makes it even worse, as it is basically a game of Telephone. And we know how that goes.

Many scholars believe that the Exodus story is somewhat based on historical events though they may differ from those in the bible. But we are way, way, way off topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What cases would slavery be acceptable, and supportable? Your statement here really opened a can of worms.

I could use a sex slave or two.

 

[F1fan]

I could use a sex slave or two.

That's just the hormones talking as you go through puberty.

But yeah, I could too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Many scholars believe that the Exodus story is somewhat based on historical events though they may differ from those in the bible. But we are way, way, way off topic.

None that have any actual evidence, because there isn't any. Just claims.

 

[Quagmire]

I've forgotten too

This was the only question I asked you in this thread:
The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

And you never answered it.

 

[dybmh]

It does, you just ignore or reinterpret Exodus 21 7

[quo]

First, because these are your standards. Previously you objected to a lenient interpretation, and objected to making assumptions. I'm playing by your rules. If you want to change those rules, that's fine; but that cuts both ways. Are you going strictly by the text or not?

I have always gone by the text. I am not the one changing the rules.



I am on a tablet right now so these excessive breaks are rather distracting. The proper phrase is " some slaves" when it comes to females. The Exodus 21 verse is when a father sells his daughter. It is for life, though there are a few exceptions. It does not openly state it but it appears that she is slated to be a sex slave, or concubine if you wish. And the "you break her, you own her" rule seems to apply.

OK. You're on your tablet. Here is my response in one block-chunk. Your objection cuts both ways. If I am ignoring/reinterpretting Exo 21:7, you are ignoring/reinterprettng Deut 15:12. If the rules haven't changed and we are going by the text, any Hebrew, male female, cradle to grave, are included in Deut 15:12. Exo 21 begins by talking about a freeing a male hebrew slave. The conditions for permanent servitude are literally and clearly stated. In other places in Torah this permanent service is clearly and literally stated. Choosing to insert permanent service where it is not clearly and literally stated is breaking from the pattern. Doing so ignores multiple passages. Not just Deut 15:12, but also Exo 21:6, and Lev 25:46, and every other place in Torah where the word "olam" is used. So, who is more accurate? Even if I am reinterpretting/ignoring Exo 21:7, which I'm not, you're reinterpretting/ignoring 3 verses and a whole lot more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. You're on your tablet. Here is my response in one block-chunk. Your objection cuts both ways. If I am ignoring/reinterpretting Exo 21:7, you are ignoring/reinterprettng Deut 15:12. If the rules haven't changed and we are going by the text, any Hebrew, male female, cradle to grave, are included in Deut 15:12. Exo 21 begins by talking about a freeing a male hebrew slave. The conditions for permanent servitude are literally and clearly stated. In other places in Torah this permanent service is clearly and literally stated. Choosing to insert permanent service where it is not clearly and literally stated is breaking from the pattern. Doing so ignores multiple passages. Not just Deut 15:12, but also Exo 21:6, and Lev 25:46, and every other place in Torah where the word "olam" is used. So, who is more accurate? Even if I am reinterpretting/ignoring Exo 21:7, which I'm not, you're reinterpretting/ignoring 3 verses and a whole lot more.

No. I acknowledged that there are cases where a female Hebrew serves only seven years. It is a black and white fallacy for you to apply your one verse to all cases. And where am I breaking the pattern? For non Hebrew slaves it was usually a life long term. The case we are discussing is an exception that clearly states how a Hebrew male could become a slave for life.

 

[Kathryn]

What cases would slavery be acceptable, and supportable? Your statement here really opened a can of worms.

Well, as I've already pointed out, for some reason the KJV of the bible uses the word "slavery" or "slave" when the actual terms mean everything from "beloved house servant" to indentured servants to field hands basically. I personally think there's a big difference between voluntary servitude and involuntary slavery but that's just me.

Not too long ago, even in western societies, debtors were told to pay off what they owed. Sometimes this involved becoming a servant for a certain length of time. You could call that slavery like King James did but I don't necessarily call it that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, as I've already pointed out, for some reason the KJV of the bible uses the word "slavery" or "slave" when the actual terms mean everything from "beloved house servant" to indentured servants to field hands basically. I personally think there's a big difference between voluntary servitude and involuntary slavery but that's just me.

You are ignoring both foreign slaves, which were not "indentured servants". They were slaves for life, and female "slaves" and they appear to be sex slaves, when sold by their father. Now they maybe "beloved ho=se servants" but it is still a life sentence for them.

And the Bible does permit beating of slaves. Just not to "excess". Knock out a tooth or an eye and the slave goes free. If it dies within two days of a beating you are in serious trouble. But three days and the servant dies and you are in the clear. That does not sound very much different from chattel slavery in the South.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, as I've already pointed out, for some reason the KJV of the bible uses the word "slavery" or "slave" when the actual terms mean everything from "beloved house servant" to indentured servants to field hands basically. I personally think there's a big difference between voluntary servitude and involuntary slavery but that's just me.

I don't think it matters what word they specifically used. What's described in the Bible is chattel slavery. Slaves are the described as the owner's property/money. As I'm pretty sure another poster has already pointed out.

 

[F1fan]

Well, as I've already pointed out, for some reason the KJV of the bible uses the word "slavery" or "slave" when the actual terms mean everything from "beloved house servant" to indentured servants to field hands basically. I personally think there's a big difference between voluntary servitude and involuntary slavery but that's just me.

Not too long ago, even in western societies, debtors were told to pay off what they owed. Sometimes this involved becoming a servant for a certain length of time. You could call that slavery like King James did but I don't necessarily call it that.

These examples are more like business and legally contractual than crimes against humanity. Voluntary servitube would still be open for a person to certain freedoms. Arguably some prisons in the USA have been criticized for using prosoners for labor, but they are paying off a debt for crimes. The harsh, involuntary slavery is really the issue at hand, and the OT stories do seem to point to this form of slavery, and a severe lack of equality and freedom.

To my mind why would an absolute God EVER allow this? And I don't notice any actual texts that state the OT laws are no longer applicable to any tribe.

 

[Kathryn]

You are ignoring both foreign slaves, which were not "indentured servants". They were slaves for life, and female "slaves" and they appear to be sex slaves, when sold by their father. Now they maybe "beloved ho=se servants" but it is still a life sentence for them.

And the Bible does permit beating of slaves. Just not to "excess". Knock out a tooth or an eye and the slave goes free. If it dies within two days of a beating you are in serious trouble. But three days and the servant dies and you are in the clear. That does not sound very much different from chattel slavery in the South.

I'm not defending true slavery, nor am I ignoring anyone. I'm simply stating that there are many differences between types of servants, slaves, indentured servants, slaves in the field, beloved house servants, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not defending true slavery, nor am I ignoring anyone. I'm simply stating that there are many differences between types of servants, slaves, indentured servants, slaves in the field, beloved house servants, etc.

And they had everything from chattel slaves to beloved house servants back then. One cannot ignore the chattel slaves working in the fields because there are a few well treated ones. Nor has anyone denied that there were beloved house servants. The denial only seems to be about the existence of chattel slavery back then.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't think it matters what word they specifically used. What's described in the Bible is chattel slavery. Slaves are the described as the owner's property/money. As I'm pretty sure another poster has already pointed out.

There's a reason why Christians believe in Christ communicating via the NT, and why Jews don't believe that. Do you really want to get into the whole OT vs NT thing? Please say no. I have so much to do today and am about to have to get up and get dressed and start shaking things up. Not owning any slaves and not being owned as a slave, I might add.

 

[Altfish]

This was the only question I asked you in this thread:
The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

And you never answered it.

It was answered comprehensively by others

 

[dybmh]

No. I acknowledged that there are cases where a female Hebrew serves only seven years. It is a black and white fallacy for you to apply your one verse to all cases. And where am I breaking the pattern? For non Hebrew slaves it was usually a life long term. The case we are discussing is an exception that clearly states how a Hebrew male could become a slave for life.

You're breaking the pattern by assuming permanent servitude for an AMAH when it is not written explicitly and clearly like all the other times when this is the case. Yes, there is an exception, and as I look closer the exception includes all classes as well. If a Hebrew slave, male or female or even a young woman declares that she loves her current situation, then the ear is pierced, and the service is permanent. That is literally in Deuteronomy 15:16-17. Here it uses the same word "AMAH" to describe a young woman who can choose permanent servitude. Does it make logical sense that the servitude is permanent by default if there is a process to grant this permanence?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's a reason why Christians believe in Christ communicating via the NT, and why Jews don't believe that. Do you really want to get into the whole OT vs NT thing? Please say no. I have so much to do today and am about to have to get up and get dressed and start shaking things up. Not owning any slaves and not being owned as a slave, I might add.

Uh, no. I didn't say anything about that.

What I said was:

I don't think it matters what word they specifically used. What's described in the Bible is chattel slavery. Slaves are the described as the owner's property/money. As I'm pretty sure another poster has already pointed out.