Does the Bible condone slavery?

[Hedgehog]

You could say something similar for our legal system. Any "sadistic, boil-infested, goat-feces encrusted, snaggle-toothed cretin could simply lie in wait", rape a pretty girl, and (with the help of a good lawyer), get a simple slap-on-the-wrist jail sentence which, once served, gets him off the hook as he's "paid his debt to society".  Meanwhile the victim lives her life with a broken body, scarred psyche, a stack of medical bills, lost wages, etc.

Are you saying that just because there are flaws in todays legal system it sort of gives the Bible a pass for having fcuked up values?

Explain how that works bro.

[The Luke]

Plus, as you feebly attempted to leave out, the comparsion I used was between Deut. 21 and Deut. 22

One is in Deut. 21, which speaks of a woman being DIVORCED from her husband; hence you have the “humbled” part.

The other is Deut. 22, in which the context CLEARLY INDICATES that the woman was raped.

...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.

Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master".

The phrase "set free" which you have paraphrased as DIVORCED, as used in the Bible is not an honest reflection of the situation. She was literally made homeless... with only the clothes on her back because her master no longer enjoyed raping or beating her... she is thrown into the street; in a strange land. Should she manage to work her way across the border she must now run the gauntlet of the slavetraders from whom the Hebrews bought their slaves.

It doesn't say "husband" it says "master".




Your argument about punishment and chattel slavery is patently ridiculous.

The Romans practiced chattel slavery for 1,100 years... yet since the inception of the Roman state they had most of the exact same laws regarding the treatment of slaves.

A Roman did not have the legal right to put a slave to death without good cause... but the standard of what constituted "good cause" was as simple as entertainment. Slaves were daily forced into mortal combat in the arena for just such cause and it was not only legal, the industries patrons included the Emperor himself.

A Roman did not have the legal right to blind or de-tooth a slave... but in practice slaves could be beaten to death on the grounds of some imaginary insult, and slaves were often fed live to rabid dogs, in households, solely for the purposes of maintaining discipline.

Women had the right to divorce their husbands too... but that was contingent upon the husband granting the divorce. In practice, women leaving their husbands were often just beaten to death by a husband who is well within his rights to do so (honour killing).

Slavemasters could indeed free their female slaves and marry them... in practice it never happened. Slave owners would routinely rape their female slaves, with impunity.

Women in the ancient world did not have ownership of their own sexual consent... that is a recent concept.



Why you think none of this happened among the early Israelites when the loopholes making such barbarity and brutality perfectly legal are clearly stated in the Hebrew legal texts is beyond me.



Even when the Roman empire became mostly Christian all these practices continued.


The Luke

[OzmO]

McWay,

Your position seems to get weaker and weaker.

There is plenty of divine direction in the bible;  just not 100% of it.

[MCWAY]

...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.

No, you are not. First, you claimed that "anah" was a SOFTENING of the supposed original translation (Of course, you never provide what the alleged original word and translation actually is), since that word DOES NOT translate directly as "rape".

Now, you're trying to flip the script and say that you got the word right, equating the context of the verse from Deut. 21 with that of Deut. 22. That is patently false and inaccurate, as those verses are talking about TWO different scenarios.

To top it all off, the guy CAN'T TOUCH the woman for at least a month. Then, he has to marry her, before any sex goes onward. If this were an issue of rape, there'd be no "hands-off" time, whatsoever.

Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master".

The phrase "set free" which you have paraphrased as DIVORCED, as used in the Bible is not an honest reflection of the situation. She was literally made homeless... with only the clothes on her back because her master no longer enjoyed raping or beating her... she is thrown into the street; in a strange land. Should she manage to work her way across the border she must now run the gauntlet of the slavetraders from whom the Hebrews bought their slaves.

It doesn't say "husband" it says "master".

Ummmmm.....you might want to look at that again, Luke.

Deut. 21:13-14

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

I'm sorry! Where is that "pleased not her master" part, again?

Last time I checked, if you let your wife go, that’s called a DIVORCE. That means that, REGARDLESS of her being originally a foreign servant, any monetary/material compensation to which a former wife (and her children) would be entitled, this woman would get . That is clearly indicated in the subsequent verses in that chapter.

Your argument about punishment and chattel slavery is patently ridiculous.

The Romans practiced chattel slavery for 1,100 years... yet since the inception of the Roman state they had most of the exact same laws regarding the treatment of slaves.

A Roman did not have the legal right to put a slave to death without good cause... but the standard of what constituted "good cause" was as simple as entertainment. Slaves were daily forced into mortal combat in the arena for just such cause and it was not only legal, the industries patrons included the Emperor himself.

What does Rome have to do with the price of tea in China? Per Biblical law, A master could not put his servant to death AT ALL. If he did, guess what happened to him.....HE GOT PUT TO DEATH.

Of course, you've been making the claim to the contrary for days now. Yet, as usual, when asked to produce the goods to support your statement, you come up with squat.

A Roman did not have the legal right to blind or de-tooth a slave... but in practice slaves could be beaten to death on the grounds of some imaginary insult, and slaves were often fed live to rabid dogs, in households, solely for the purposes of maintaining discipline.

Women had the right to divorce their husbands too... but that was contingent upon the husband granting the divorce. In practice, women leaving their husbands were often just beaten to death by a husband who is well within his rights to do so (honour killing).

And??? This ain't Rome, thus no "honour killing". You kill your wife; you get put to death, end of story.

Why you think none of this happened among the early Israelites when the loopholes making such barbarity and brutality perfectly legal are clearly stated in the Hebrew legal texts is beyond me.

A lot of stuff is "beyond you". A prime example of that was your silly claim that the man in Deut. 21 not being referenced as a "husband". The text clearly states that he IS just that, a husband. But, that simple fact was beyond you.

Even when the Roman empire became mostly Christian all these practices continued.

The Luke

Roman law and the laws in the OT are two completely different issues. Attempting to equate the two, hoping to make your claims stick, is quite weak.

[Deedee]

Nothing in the text suggests that this was a forced arrangement, especially with Hagar's holding her pregnancy with Ishmael over Sarah's head.

lol, this is getting silly.  Hagar was a slave.  She was "given" to be bred.  She had no choice to say yes or no.  She was told, take off your clothes, go lie over there and the old man will be with you in a moment.  She did as she was told or she was punished.  That's called force.

Abe took her in the typical sham slave/concubine marriage (although some scholars dispute that she was even married) and when she displeased the "real" wife, she was given a "divorce"  and "freedom" in the manner that you have deemed so just and benevolent.  She was cast out into the desert with nothing but the clothes on her back.

My point is that, notwithstanding that Hagar's being sent away had more to do Hagar and Ishmael's well-being, the laws don't become unfair or unjust, simply because somebody has broken or abused them. Our legal system is, perhaps, the best in the world today. But, there are STILL those who break the law or use legal loopholes to get away with abuse.

After 15 years of bickering between the two (especially with Sarah finally having Isaac), the dysfunction had finally reach the breaking point. Of course, had Abe and Sarah followed the Lord's instructions, none of this would have occured.

You and loco spent half the thread posting the laws as "proof" that people never mistreated or harmed others. Now you seem to agree that just because laws are in place doesn't mean people will obey them.

Which is it? 

I posted those other stories to illustrate that obviously the laws didn't matter at all, since people constantly flouted them.  People didn't get punished because others "didn't tell" or they were forgiven, or who even knew what the hell was going on out in the desert boonies to enforce them.  You keep focussing on the death penalty, as though everyone who deserved it, got it. Simeon et al, were guilty of murder, were they executed? Reuben slept with his father's concubine?  Was he executed? 

And further, we're to believe that people who have no problems viciously murdering an entire village, slicing open pregnant women, killing children, would somehow balk at killing, raping, or severely beating a slave because "it's against the law"?

Again, you have only evidence that there were laws to assert that slaves were well-treated, whereas the documented history of indentured servitude a few hundred years ago, the brutality of today's islamic fundamentalism which mirrors the Hebrew customs, and common sense tells a totally different story.

[Deedee]

Deut. 21:13-14

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

I'm sorry! Where is that "pleased not her master" part, again?

Last time I checked, if you let your wife go, that’s called a DIVORCE. That means that, REGARDLESS of her being originally a foreign servant, any monetary/material compensation to which a former wife (and her children) would be entitled, this woman would get . That is clearly indicated in the subsequent verses in that chapter.

Yes, she was kidnapped to another country, forcibly had her hair shaved, given slave clothes and given a month to stop worshiping her own gods. Which is what the reference to mother and father means.  The priests and elders wanted to be sure that the women didn't "infect" the men with unholy ideas before they went on to rape them.

They went through the sham slave/concubine marriage thing, and if the dude didn't like her after the first assault, he put her out onto the street, without having to give her anything, no money, nothing, except her freedom.  It was extremely just and benevolent.    I don't know where you keep going with this equality with other wives business. The slaves were released out into the street, with not a single thing.

[The Luke]

No, you are not. First, you claimed that "anah" was a SOFTENING of the supposed original translation (Of course, you never provide what the alleged original word and translation actually is), since that word DOES NOT translate directly as "rape".

A softening of a translation yes, but your attempt to imply that I claimed the text had been tampered with is just more of your continuous falsification-by-deliberate-misquoting tactic.

...in that context it should be translated as "rape". Many scholars did just that when translating that verse. Only moderns translations written by apologists avoid the phrases "defiled"; "shamed" and "raped" in favour of "humbled"... the context is obvious.

If I read a modern police report in which someone had "molested" a child, I would know that in a sexual context the word translates as a sexual assault... I would simply be wrong to insist the proper translation was "to annoy", as "molested" was translated in the 19th century.

The same applies here.

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.[/i]

I'm sorry! Where is that "pleased not her master" part, again?

...you are just playing the translation game here. One of the popular translations has the bolded part rendered as: "...if she pleases not her master..."

Besides, the idea that a woman can be discarded simply because the husband doesn't enjoy schtooping her kinda undermines your argument that slave wives had equal rights to Hebrew wives.

What does Rome have to do with the price of tea in China? Per Biblical law, A master could not put his servant to death AT ALL. If he did, guess what happened to him.....HE GOT PUT TO DEATH.

...aren't you forgetting the verse that states a master is not punished for beating his slave to death with a stick (provided the slave takes more than 24 hours to die), because the slave is "his property".

...aren't you also forgetting that a master who beats his slave to death is "punished"; it does not explicitly state that he is put to death, and every instance warranting the death penalty is explicitly delineated in the Old Testament (even to the point of repetition).

These same laws governing the treatment of slaves also applied through most of the Roman Empire... but no one would make your silly argument that Roman slaves were some form of "indentured servants" as we know how the laws were actually applied. Roman slaves were little more than chattel slaves... just like the slaves in the Bible.

Only true-believers unable to reconcile slavery with their modern sensibilities argue otherwise.



The Luke

[Deedee]

I’d hardly considered a lifetime of having your wages garnished or the death penalty a “prize”, for a crime committed. Plus, even with our system giving seven years (and that's hardly a minimum, as I've seen rapists get less than that), that still leaves the victim with a lifetime of trauma and a stack of bills for medical care. I'd say they don't want the bills or the marriage. They'd want the perp to suffer and the payment of the bills, NOT to come out of their own pocket.

To answer something you keep insisting: THERE WAS NO DEALTH PENALTY FOR RAPES PERPETRATED ON UNENGAGED GIRLS.

The father was given the bride-price and hopefully everyone could avoid further shame on the family by marrying off the girl to her rapist. How you can think this is somehow great on a woman's psyche is incredible.  That being married to your assailant with somehow relieve the trauma is really repulsive.

Where are you getting this 'lifetime of wages" garnishing business from? People who married the regular way didn't spend a lifetime paying off the bride price, and as in the case of Dinah's rapist, the father was so wealthy he could have paid it off several times over in one shot.

[Deedee]

Once again, you forgot that God promised Abraham that Ishmael would prosper and be the father of a great nation. This He did, IN ADDITION to fulfilling the original deal of Abe's seed being made great via a child THROUGH Sarah.

As for the marriage issue, you again leave out the fact that the servants can and often DID leave with their families. The underlying issue was marital status, prior to servitude. If a man came into servitude single; that's how he left. If he entered married, he left married, with his kids.

And, if he entered single but married while serving his master. He had two options: One, stay under his master's employ to be with his wife and kids; Two, PAY THE DOWRY to get his wife and kids, as he would have had to do with a man's daughter (since the master provided the bride).

Who cares what God said or did? You're excusing abuse of a slave/concubine by saying, "oh well, God intervened so all was good."  What about all the other cases he didn't intervene? God really has no part in this discussion.

As for the other... so, if an owner gave a new slave a wife in order that they should breed, rightfully so, the kids and wife belong to the owner, to sell at will if he wished, and if he happened to feel so inclined, to refuse to sell them to the slave once his time was up. The only option for the impoverished slave was to give himself over to perpetual servitude if he wanted to remain with his family.

Sounds exactly like chattel slavery to me. 

 

[Deedee]

...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.[...]

I thought this was a good post The Luke.

[loco]

You and loco spent half the thread posting the laws as "proof" that people never mistreated or harmed others. Now you seem to agree that just because laws are in place doesn't mean people will obey them.

Deedee,
What's with you and OzmO?  You bring me up in your posts, only to then refuse to "get into it" with me when I respond.  If you and OzmO don't want to "get into it" with me, then leave me out of your posts and give MCWAY a proper response.

Deedee,
Please do quote me saying that God's laws are "'proof' that people never mistreated or harmed others."  When did I say that?  When have I denied that Israelites, or anybody, can and have disobeyed God's laws or attempted to find ways around them?  Stop putting words in my mouth!

The Luke, I'm still waiting for your responses, on this and the other threads...The Sermon on the Mount?  Death by Crucifixion?  Josephus?  Remember?

[MCWAY]

Yes, she was kidnapped to another country, forcibly had her hair shaved, given slave clothes and given a month to stop worshiping her own gods. Which is what the reference to mother and father means.  The priests and elders wanted to be sure that the women didn't "infect" the men with unholy ideas before they went on to rape them.

The kidnapping thing isn’t a factor, because (as mentioned earlier), the penalty for kidnapping someone from their homeland was DEATH. Therefore, the only time this happens is was during the aftermath of combat, in which the opponent was the aggressor.

They went through the sham slave/concubine marriage thing, and if the dude didn't like her after the first assault, he put her out onto the street, without having to give her anything, no money, nothing, except her freedom.  It was extremely just and benevolent.    I don't know where you keep going with this equality with other wives business. The slaves were released out into the street, with not a single thing.

Not quite, Deedee. As pointed out, once he married her, she becomes his WIFE. If he divorces here, because "he has found no delight in her", that makes her the "unloved" (NASB) or "hated" (KJV) wife. And, that means that she gets entitled to care. Plus, if her son is the ex-husband's firstborn, he gets the bulk of his father's estate, upon Dad's demise.

Who cares what God said or did? You're excusing abuse of a slave/concubine by saying, "oh well, God intervened so all was good."  What about all the other cases he didn't intervene? God really has no part in this discussion.

On the contrary, He does indeed. The whole reason that Abe and Sarah did this mess in the first place is because they grew impatient, wondering if God was really going to deliver on His promise to give them a child.

We have NO indication of any mistreatment of Hagar, prior to her getting pregnant, and NO report that she was forced into doing this. The drama between the women starts, once Hagar gets pregnant.

And, the ONLY REASON that Abe agrees that Hagar and Ishmael should leave is because of God's promise that He will care for both Hagar and Ishmael, making Ishmael's descendants numerous, as well.

Once again, you are making the gross assumption, with little to back it, that Hagar was an unwilling participant in this whole surrogate thing. The problem with that is that, per the text, we have NO indication that Abe did anything with Hagar, PRIOR to Sarah's idea that she have this promised child.

As for the other... so, if an owner gave a new slave a wife in order that they should breed, rightfully so, the kids and wife belong to the owner, to sell at will if he wished, and if he happened to feel so inclined, to refuse to sell them to the slave once his time was up. The only option for the impoverished slave was to give himself over to perpetual servitude if he wanted to remain with his family.


Sounds exactly like chattel slavery to me. 

 

I beg to differ. For starters, in chattel slavery, the servant would likely not have that option, whatsoever. Plus, there'd be no law stating that, if a guy came under servitude with his wife, that he'd be allowed to leave with his wife. If the master were allowed to be that cold, he could keep the guy's wife, even if the servant brought his wife with him. But, that's not how it goes.

Plus, there are the other laws mentioned earlier: No kidnapping from foreign lands, status as full wife for foreign women, who get married; servitude being VOIDED, upon major injury of the servants; masters PUT TO DEATH for killing servants, etc.

And, there's the issue of the Jubilee. The servant, after seven years, doesn't leave his former master's house "impoverished".

Deut. 15:12-14

 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:  Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.  

And, why did they do this?

Verse 15-18

And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.  

And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;  

Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.  

It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.  

So, it appears that, if the male servant is leaving, he's leaving with a healthy amount of livestock, grain, or whatever capital his master has. I'm quite sure the master wouldn't mind negotating, to get some of those sheep, oxen, grain, wine, etc. back, in exchange for the former servant's wife and kids.

To answer something you keep insisting: THERE WAS NO DEALTH PENALTY FOR RAPES PERPETRATED ON UNENGAGED GIRLS.

The father was given the bride-price and hopefully everyone could avoid further shame on the family by marrying off the girl to her rapist. How you can think this is somehow great on a woman's psyche is incredible.  That being married to your assailant with somehow relieve the trauma is really repulsive.

Did you not read what I posted? "I'd say they don't want the bills or the marriage. They'd want the perp to suffer and the payment of the bills, NOT to come out of their own pocket.

Where are you getting this 'lifetime of wages" garnishing business from? People who married the regular way didn't spend a lifetime paying off the bride price, and as in the case of Dinah's rapist, the father was so wealthy he could have paid it off several times over in one shot.

Rape isn't the "regular way". And, in certain circumstances, such as the penalty for besmirching a young woman's character and virginity, there was a lifetime penalty: DOUBLE THE BRIDE-PRICE and marriage (care for the bride) FOR LIFE.

[MCWAY]

lol, this is getting silly.  Hagar was a slave.  She was "given" to be bred.  She had no choice to say yes or no.  She was told, take off your clothes, go lie over there and the old man will be with you in a moment.  She did as she was told or she was punished.  That's called force.

And the punishment was.......

If Hagar didn't want to participate, or feared being punished for not participating, she could have simply LEFT, which is exactly what she did, once Sarah started to mistreat her. And, that was due to a combination of Sarah's jealousy and Hagar's antagonizing.

Abe took her in the typical sham slave/concubine marriage (although some scholars dispute that she was even married) and when she displeased the "real" wife, she was given a "divorce"  and "freedom" in the manner that you have deemed so just and benevolent.  She was cast out into the desert with nothing but the clothes on her back.

Displeasing the "real" wife was not the determining factor. Abe DID NOT want to let Hagar and Ishmael leave. Once again, the ONLY reason he does that is because he is promised by God that Hagar and Ishmael will prosper and that Ishmael descendants will become great.

You and loco spent half the thread posting the laws as "proof" that people never mistreated or harmed others. Now you seem to agree that just because laws are in place doesn't mean people will obey them.

Which is it? 

What are you talking about? Loco and I NEVER CLAIMED that people never mistreated and harmed others. What we said is that there were STIFF PENALTIES, when those abuses took place. And, both of us gave examples of that, some of which you've tried to dismiss.

I posted those other stories to illustrate that obviously the laws didn't matter at all, since people constantly flouted them.  People didn't get punished because others "didn't tell" or they were forgiven, or who even knew what the hell was going on out in the desert boonies to enforce them.  You keep focussing on the death penalty, as though everyone who deserved it, got it. Simeon et al, were guilty of murder, were they executed? Reuben slept with his father's concubine?  Was he executed? 

And further, we're to believe that people who have no problems viciously murdering an entire village, slicing open pregnant women, killing children, would somehow balk at killing, raping, or severely beating a slave because "it's against the law"?

Again, you have only evidence that there were laws to assert that slaves were well-treated, whereas the documented history of indentured servitude a few hundred years ago, the brutality of today's islamic fundamentalism which mirrors the Hebrew customs, and common sense tells a totally different story.

Once again, you're confusing the two issues, the laws put in place vs. THE ABUSE of those laws. As I've said repeatedly, even our laws in the USA (as great as many of them are) HAVE BEEN ABUSED AND BROKEN IN THE PAST AND CONTINUE TO BE ABUSED AND BROKEN TODAY. That doesn't mean that our legal system is garbage and needs to be scrapped.

[MCWAY]

A softening of a translation yes, but your attempt to imply that I claimed the text had been tampered with is just more of your continuous falsification-by-deliberate-misquoting tactic.

I'm not implying it. I'm flat-out saying it, and I have YOUR OWN WORDS as proof.

...in that context it should be translated as "rape". Many scholars did just that when translating that verse. Only moderns translations written by apologists avoid the phrases "defiled"; "shamed" and "raped" in favour of "humbled"... the context is obvious.

If I read a modern police report in which someone had "molested" a child, I would know that in a sexual context the word translates as a sexual assault... I would simply be wrong to insist the proper translation was "to annoy", as "molested" was translated in the 19th century.

The same applies here.

No, it does not. First of all, Deut. 21 is referring to a divorce. In the verses, she is MARRIED to the man.

Second of all, I cited the KJV, which is HARDLY shy about using terms like "defiled" or "shamed". And while the word, "raped" isn't used, the term, "force her and lie with her" clearly is, which means the woman was raped.

So, quit making excuses for the fact that your claims don't match what the text says, in this regards. Deut. 21 says nothing about rape. The woman in that text is being "humbled", because her husband has divorced her. And, according the the subsequent verses (and others), she ain't leaving empty-handed, if that happens.

...you are just playing the translation game here. One of the popular translations has the bolded part rendered as: "...if she pleases not her master..."

Then, name that translation. I posted the KJV; the NASB says the same thing. In fact, the phrase, "If she pleases not her master" IS NOT in Deut. 21, whatsoever.

Besides, the idea that a woman can be discarded simply because the husband doesn't enjoy schtooping her kinda undermines your argument that slave wives had equal rights to Hebrew wives.

If you'd bothered to continue reading Deut. 21, you'd see just how false this statement of yours actually is. The wife not only DOES NOT just get discarded, but her firstborn son becomes the heir to his fortune.

...aren't you forgetting the verse that states a master is not punished for beating his slave to death with a stick (provided the slave takes more than 24 hours to die), because the slave is "his property".


...aren't you also forgetting that a master who beats his slave to death is "punished"; it does not explicitly state that he is put to death, and every instance warranting the death penalty is explicitly delineated in the Old Testament (even to the point of repetition).

Aren't you forgetting that the verse states that the master, whose servant dies UNDER HIS HAND, get punished. That means the master is responsible for his death. "If he continues" means that he gets up, that he stands, that he's able to resume his duties. If he doesn't continue and he dies, guess who's responsible....THE MASTER; guess who gets punished.....THE MASTER.

No one beaten that severely is simply going to get up, go back to work, and collapse two days later, as much as you'd like to paint that scenario to salvage your ridiculous claim.

And, since you want to talk about "forgetting" stuff, for the nth time, what is this alleged punishment besides the death penalty for a master killing his servant. You've had several days to answer this question. So, what's the hold up?

There's only ONE PUNISHMENT listed for a man "smiting another man"........DEATH, no fine, no sacrifice......DEATH!!!!!

These same laws governing the treatment of slaves also applied through most of the Roman Empire... but no one would make your silly argument that Roman slaves were some form of "indentured servants" as we know how the laws were actually applied. Roman slaves were little more than chattel slaves... just like the slaves in the Bible.

Only true-believers unable to reconcile slavery with their modern sensibilities argue otherwise.


The Luke

Wrong again. You tried equating the two earlier and failed miserably at that. For example, there's no "good cause" for killing a servant (if you do so, you DIE) and you certainly can't make sport of him. You can't maim the guy or he goes free.

[The Luke]

Then, name that translation. I posted the KJV; the NASB says the same thing. In fact, the phrase, "If she pleases not her master" IS NOT in Deut. 21, whatsoever.

...I'm sorry, I thought the King James Version was:
Exodus 21:8:
"If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."

...I never claimed I was referencing Deuteronomy, you did that in order to deliberately misquote me. This habit you have of selectively quoting verses, then misquoting your opponents claims is dishonest.


Falsification-by-misquoting is a tactic used only by those who subconsciously know they are in the wrong.


I claimed the word "anah" should be translated as "raped"/"defiled"/"shamed" due to the sexual context of the passage.... I claimed the translation had been softened or toned down.

You then dishonestly misquote and misrepresent what I said... this is only so you can avoid the point of my argument, and everyone reading can see through this blatantly disingenuous tactic.

First, you claimed that "anah" was a SOFTENING of the supposed original translation (Of course, you never provide what the alleged original word and translation actually is), since that word DOES NOT translate directly as "rape".

...I never made any claim that "anah" was some form of interpolation, I claimed that in the context it is being mistranslated. I never "alleged" there was any original word or original translation.

You have decided to invent these claims, solely in order to deride me for making them... that's no way to debate any subject.

Why do you persist in this silly misquoting?

I'm assuming it is a deliberate tactic... but I would withdraw my objection if is just a genuine lack of aptitude regarding reading comprehension.


The Luke

[Shaunie]

The subject of this Forum is "Does the bible condone slavery?". 

Clearly the answer is yes. 

Regardless of the finer detail - MCWAY himself has pointed out the bible contains rules for taking, keeping and releasing slaves. 

No matter how 'well' you keep a slave...  slavery is wrong. 

Despite this clear and simple reasoning, MCWAY will not concede this point.  He'll probably go down one of the following routes;
 1) The meaning of "slave" back then was different to a "slave" today
 2) Slavery was designed to protect the victim somehow
 3) God works in mysterious ways.

The reason he can't concede the point is that MCWAY believes all morality comes from his god, and 'that' morality is unchanging.  I'm sure MCWAY would admit that slavery is wrong, however that means the bible must also say that it's wrong.  This is why he is so desperate to perform the breathtaking mental gymnastics to defend the bibles position on slavery. 

How far off the mark am I MCWAY?

[OzmO]

The subject of this Forum is "Does the bible condone slavery?". 

Clearly the answer is yes. 

Regardless of the finer detail - MCWAY himself has pointed out the bible contains rules for taking, keeping and releasing slaves. 

No matter how 'well' you keep a slave...  slavery is wrong. 

Despite this clear and simple reasoning, MCWAY will not concede this point.  He'll probably go down one of the following routes;
 1) The meaning of "slave" back then was different to a "slave" today
 2) Slavery was designed to protect the victim somehow
 3) God works in mysterious ways.

The reason he can't concede the point is that MCWAY believes all morality comes from his god, and 'that' morality is unchanging.  I'm sure MCWAY would admit that slavery is wrong, however that means the bible must also say that it's wrong.  This is why he is so desperate to perform the breathtaking mental gymnastics to defend the bibles position on slavery. 

How far off the mark am I MCWAY?

You only need to read the endless explanations and and debate tactics

[The Luke]

It's obvious that McWay is arguing the indefensible, but the thread remains interesting just from a morbid-curiosity standpoint.


I'd still really like this question answered:

...are you saying you believe Baal, Dagon and the other heathen gods were real gods like Yahweh, but were trounced by Yahweh?

You believe the Middle East was home to several actual real life gods with attendant followers 3000 years ago?

...as a strict atheist/rationalist I'd be interested in McWay's opinion of this? Sort of an insight into his madness as it were...

Does the Bible's insistence upon referring to these other deities as "gods" put them on a par with Yahweh himself?

Is Yahweh the one and only god because he managed to kill off the followers of these other gods?

There are more worshipers praying to Yahweh now than ever before, so why can he no longer physically manifest himself (as he did through the Ark in Old testament times)?

Does Yahweh NEED us to pray to him...? Could doubt have killed him off the way it seemingly killed off his brother gods Baal and Dagon?



The Luke

[liberalismo]

Interesting commentary from www.gotquestions.org.


Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"

Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as if it was something of the past. It is estimated that there are today 12.3 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. For more information, please visit - http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery.

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – many slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God, receiving His salvation – God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.

Slavery is wrong regardless of its forms. Whether it is slavery due to social class or race, it is wrong regardless. A book inspired by the all knowing, all powerful, all good God should not "make rules" about slavery, it should condemn it totally and completely.

[MCWAY]

...I'm sorry, I thought the King James Version was:
Exodus 21:8:
"If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."

...I never claimed I was referencing Deuteronomy, you did that in order to deliberately misquote me. This habit you have of selectively quoting verses, then misquoting your opponents claims is dishonest.


Falsification-by-misquoting is a tactic used only by those who subconsciously know they are in the wrong.

That's a bunch of BS, Luke. These are YOUR OWN WORDS, from Reply 251, posted, December 15, 2008, 03:10:21 PM

...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.

Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master".

The phrase "set free" which you have paraphrased as DIVORCED, as used in the Bible is not an honest reflection of the situation. She was literally made homeless... with only the clothes on her back because her master no longer enjoyed raping or beating her... she is thrown into the street; in a strange land. Should she manage to work her way across the border she must now run the gauntlet of the slavetraders from whom the Hebrews bought their slaves.

It doesn't say "husband" it says "master".

Once again, you resort to false claims about being misquoted, to hide your faulty claims. A simple acknowledgement that you cited EXODUS 21, by mistake, would have sufficed. The saddest part of it all is that I knew all along that you were citing Exodus 21. Instead of simply saying you goofed, you went to the usual bleat-whine-false accusation mode. The LAST thing I need to do is misquote your statements. Your phrases are in clear black-and-white for any and all to see.

And, if that weren't enough, Exodus 21 isn't even talking about " but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland'. It's in reference to a Hebrew man's daughter.

I claimed the word "anah" should be translated as "raped"/"defiled"/"shamed" due to the sexual context of the passage.... I claimed the translation had been softened or toned down.

You then dishonestly misquote and misrepresent what I said... this is only so you can avoid the point of my argument, and everyone reading can see through this blatantly disingenuous tactic. ...I never made any claim that "anah" was some form of interpolation, I claimed that in the context it is being mistranslated. I never "alleged" there was any original word or original translation.

YES, YOU DID!!! I can just as easily show that in YOUR OWN WORDS, just as I did when you foolishly denied that you claimed that the "please not her master" phrase was in Deut. 21.

The translation was not toned down; otherwise, Deut. 22 would NOT contain the words, "lay hold on her, and lie with her".  That's a clear indication that the "humbled" part refers to RAPE.

You have decided to invent these claims, solely in order to deride me for making them... that's no way to debate any subject.

Why do you persist in this silly misquoting?

I'm assuming it is a deliberate tactic... but I would withdraw my objection if is just a genuine lack of aptitude regarding reading comprehension.


The Luke

Please!!! What you did was blatantly MIX-UP the context of both Deut. 21 and Deut. 22. Both use the word, "anah", which means "humbled" But, Deut. 21 clearly spells out the context of that word's use, with regards to DIVORCE; while Deut. 22 make the clear scenario of rape (i.e. a man laying hold of a woman BY FORCE and lying with her).

[MCWAY]

The subject of this Forum is "Does the bible condone slavery?". 

Clearly the answer is yes. 

Regardless of the finer detail - MCWAY himself has pointed out the bible contains rules for taking, keeping and releasing slaves. 

No matter how 'well' you keep a slave...  slavery is wrong. 

Based on what? Whose morality makes "slavery" wrong and why?

It is those details that we are discussing. And the gist of STella's thread (and the links that both she and I have used) is to make the point that the "slavery" that immediately comes to mind (i.e. chattel slavery, involving black people) WAS NOT what is being mentioned in the OLD TESTAMENT.

Then, of course, there's the minor question of what was to be done with the remnant of Israel's enemies after warfare, which certain critics are reluctant to address.

Again, do you:

a) Assimilate them into Israelite society? If so, HOW?
b) Leave them to starve and die
c) Destroy them completely

Despite this clear and simple reasoning, MCWAY will not concede this point.  He'll probably go down one of the following routes;
 1) The meaning of "slave" back then was different to a "slave" today
 2) Slavery was designed to protect the victim somehow
 3) God works in mysterious ways.

The reason he can't concede the point is that MCWAY believes all morality comes from his god, and 'that' morality is unchanging.  I'm sure MCWAY would admit that slavery is wrong, however that means the bible must also say that it's wrong.  This is why he is so desperate to perform the breathtaking mental gymnastics to defend the bibles position on slavery. 

How far off the mark am I MCWAY?

Quite off, in certain aspects.

1) Your claim that I'm somehow "desperate to perform breathtaking mental gymastics....." is utterly false. It's actually one of the easier things I've done on this forum.
2) Even if "God works in mysterious ways", this issue ain't one of them.
3) As for the definition of "slave" part, you're late to the party. Both STella and I pointed that out at the beginning of this thread. And, that's the crux of the entire issue.

Merely stating that "slavery is wrong", without giving the reasons why makes your statement hollow. If, as you claim, that morality is changing, then it can just as easily revert to chattel slavery being RIGHT. Who exactly is making the rules, here?

[MCWAY]

It's obvious that McWay is arguing the indefensible, but the thread remains interesting just from a morbid-curiosity standpoint.


I'd still really like this question answered:
...as a strict atheist/rationalist I'd be interested in McWay's opinion of this? Sort of an insight into his madness as it were...

Does the Bible's insistence upon referring to these other deities as "gods" put them on a par with Yahweh himself?

Is Yahweh the one and only god because he managed to kill off the followers of these other gods?

There are more worshipers praying to Yahweh now than ever before, so why can he no longer physically manifest himself (as he did through the Ark in Old testament times)?

Does Yahweh NEED us to pray to him...? Could doubt have killed him off the way it seemingly killed off his brother gods Baal and Dagon?



The Luke

Even in your own silliness, you just answered your own questions.

How many Molech followers have you seen around here?
Run into any Ashoreth poles, lately?
Do you see any rallies by atheists, demanding that temples of Dagon get their tax-exempt status revoked?

You, of all people, should be the LAST one, blubbering about unanswered questions. If I had a dollar for every item you've ducked, I could retire, pay off my house, put my kids through college, and take my wife on a Caribbean cruise (with change, to spare) .

Loco's still waiting to the answers to his questions (on another thread, as am I). Plus, there's the little matter here of your procuring the alleged penalty for a master killing his servant, BESIDES the death penalty.

[Shaunie]

Based on what? Whose morality makes "slavery" wrong and why?

You need to ask why slavery is wrong?  Do you not understand empathy?

It is those details that we are discussing. And the gist of STella's thread (and the links that both she and I have used) is to make the point that the "slavery" that immediately comes to mind (i.e. chattel slavery, involving black people) WAS NOT what is being mentioned in the OLD TESTAMENT.

I think I made it clear that 'all' slavery is wrong...  is this you deliberately confusing the issue?

Then, of course, there's the minor question of what was to be done with the remnant of Israel's enemies after warfare, which certain critics are reluctant to address.

Again, do you:

a) Assimilate them into Israelite society? If so, HOW?
b) Leave them to starve and die
c) Destroy them completely

Ah, this is the... 'slavery benefited the victim' approach.  Surely as god helped the Israelites to win these battles, couldn't god of helped the victims with further miracles?

Quite off, in certain aspects.

1) Your claim that I'm somehow "desperate to perform breathtaking mental gymastics....." is utterly false. It's actually one of the easier things I've done on this forum.
2) Even if "God works in mysterious ways", this issue ain't one of them.
3) As for the definition of "slave" part, you're late to the party. Both STella and I pointed that out at the beginning of this thread. And, that's the crux of the entire issue.

MCWAY it's not one of the easier things you've done... just because you 'think' you've "done" it doesn't make it true...  Oh, and the crux is that the bible does condone slavery - regardless of arguments of the particular form of slavery.

Merely stating that "slavery is wrong", without giving the reasons why makes your statement hollow. If, as you claim, that morality is changing, then it can just as easily revert to chattel slavery being RIGHT. Who exactly is making the rules, here?

That's fantastic - only apologist could possibly say that the statement "slavery is wrong" is "hollow".  Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're correct, and morality is unchanging... could you explain to the forum, just what forms of slavery are okay today?  Obviously these would be the forms of slavery you support and fit in with your moral world view.

[The Luke]

...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.

Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master".

The phrase "set free" which you have paraphrased as DIVORCED, as used in the Bible is not an honest reflection of the situation. She was literally made homeless... with only the clothes on her back because her master no longer enjoyed raping or beating her... she is thrown into the street; in a strange land. Should she manage to work her way across the border she must now run the gauntlet of the slavetraders from whom the Hebrews bought their slaves.

...well there is an apology warranted right here McWay. (Not from me).

When I wrote the above post I was aware that the bolded part comes from Exodus 21:8... I was drawing a parallel NOT directly quoting from Deuteronomy 21. You'll notice I didn't reference the "please not her master" quotation as being part of the same verse. 

What I was trying to show was that if a female Hebrew slave taken as a wife could be dismissed because she "pleases not her master" (Exodus 21:8 ); then why would you insist that a foreign war slave forcibly taken as a FOREIGN slave wife then dismissed because the soldier/husband similarly "have no delight in her" was anything other than a slave with no rights to her own sexual consent?


If a Hebrew woman SOLD to a Hebrew man has a "master" instead of a HUSBAND (Exodus 21:8 ), then how can a a foreign war captive slave not have a MASTER too?

Why would her husbands lack of "delight in her" (Deut 21:14) also constitute grounds for the same type of dismissal unless she also had a "master", RATHER than a husband.


Perhaps I should have spelled out the parallels more explicitly.





Regarding my comments on a "softening" of the translation...

The translation of "anah" in both SEXUAL contexts should be "raped"... it's the same situation, the same phrasing and the same context.

The two phrases:
Deuteronomy 21:14 "...because thou hast humbled her."
...and...
Exodus 21:8 "...seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."

....are identical in the original Hebrew aren't they?


Both should carry the same translation that the phrase "anah" (in a sexual context) carries in Deuteronomy 22:28-29    
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her."


So if it's "raped" in Deuteronomy 22:29 (as you McWay insist), then it should be "raped" in both  Deuteronomy 21:14 and Exodus 21:8... similar sexual contexts, similar situations, same word.


But the ACTUAL translations are (King James Version quoted throughout this post):
Deuteronomy 22:29 "...humbled her." ...This one you, McWay, insist refers to a RAPE.
Deuteronomy 21:14 "...humbled her."
Exodus 21:8 ..."dealt deceitfully with her."


Perhaps I am being too severe in insisting the translation should be "raped"... but using "humbled" and "dealt deceitfully" instead of DEFILED; SHAMED; ABUSED etc IS INDEED A SOFTENING OF THE TRANSLATION.

You can't argue that "rape" is only warranted in Deut 22:29 because of the "lay hands upon her" inference of forced sex, NOT when Deut 21:14 involves a captured foreign war slave... taken by force as a slave and forcibly married.

Which was the whole thrust of my argument.



The Luke

[Shaunie]

MCWAY are certain acts 'moral/ethical' because God commands them, or does God command them because they are 'moral/ethical'?