I see this argument come up often here...the fact is, slavery in Bible times was much different than the slavery we are familiar with today, as J Wallace brings out...
J. Warner Wallace is interviewed by Brittany Valadez about the nature of Ancient Near Eastern slavery and the claim that the New Testament authors condoned slavery. Was slavery, as it existed in the time of the New Testament writers, the same as the form of slavery that existed in the New World (like slavery in the United States)? Why would the Bible fail to wholeheartedly condemn any form of slavery?
I see this argument come up often here...the fact is, slavery in Bible times was much different than the slavery we are familiar with today, as J Wallace brings out...
So are you saying the Bible condones "Old School" Slavery?
Did you watch the video?
Did you watch the video?
It's not slavery, it's indentured servitude. I wonder how many "slaves" were young daughters in "indentured servitude" working off family debts?
I also wonder the Hebrew Bible used the same word for "slave" in Leviticus that it used in Exodus?
I think it's worth 5 minutes of your time...he explains how slavery back then was the answer for those who had commited crimes or were indebted to another person in some way, since there was not a formal penal system at that time...much different than being kidnapped and forced into slavery, as we think of today...
I think it's worth 5 minutes of your time...he explains how slavery back then was the answer for those who had commited crimes or were indebted to another person in some way, since there was not a formal penal system at that time...much different than being kidnapped and forced into slavery, as we think of today...
Is that how you understand the terms of the Jewish enslavement in Egypt?
That was a different type of slavery, they were forced into slavery...this man is talking about how the Israelites dealt with criminal acts and debt among themselves...some seem to think God and the Bible is condoning slavery but it was entirely different for them, even though they were still called slaves...
I watched it, Elvira.... but that's because it was you who posted it. The last time I clicked on a video without context, it tried to get me watch a 3 hour video about how the Federal Reserve killed JFK or some other kind of Roger Stone nonsense like that.
I understand...lol...
The Old Testament doesn't really draw a distinction between the two, does it?
I see this argument come up often here...the fact is, slavery in Bible times was much different than the slavery we are familiar with today, as J Wallace brings out...
I think that is what J Wallace is doing, making a distinction, as far as God is concerned...He did not condone forced slavery then anymore than He does now...Exodus 3:7,8; Isaiah 63:9...
Did the same standards apply to Gentile slaves?
Good question...I'm not sure but you gave me something to look into...I would imagine so but I really don't know...I do know they were taken into slavery by the Gentiles more than once, the worst being in 70 CE...the Romans took them completely off the land, selling thousands into slavery and destroying their genealogical records at that time...
I see this argument come up often here...the fact is, slavery in Bible times was much different than the slavery we are familiar with today, as J Wallace brings out...
That happened to pretty much everyone who messed with the Romans.
I'm just wondering why the Bible seems to draw a distinction between slaves and servants... there are plenty of references to both. If you take Exodus 21:2-11, it seems to be a kind of indentured servitude... and my Bible uses the word "servants", not "slaves".
The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17)
Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9)
In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (ʽeʹvedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8)
ʽEʹvedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10)
I see this argument come up often here...the fact is, slavery in Bible times was much different than the slavery we are familiar with today, as J Wallace brings out...
.In Washington DC’s Museum of the Bible, a copy of the so-called “Slave Bible” sits on display
This Bible, used by slave masters in the early 1800s, is quite different than the one used in pews today.
“The biggest thing is what it’s missing. The typical King James has 66 books, this one contains, in the Old Testament all or the parts of about 14 books,” explains Anthony Schmidt, PhD, Associate Curator of Bible and Religion in America.
Bibles like this, along with catechisms, were used to push a specific message to enslaved people.
“It starts off with the creation story…then it jumps to Joseph getting sold into slavery by his brothers and how that ends up being a good thing for him,” Schmidt told CBN News.
“We skip over the Israelites in slavery in Egypt being let out,” said Schmidt.
Other references to freedom were also omitted.
“They’re highlighting themes of being submissive, the same thing goes on with the New Testament as well,” he said.
“The whole book of Revelation is left out, so there is no new Kingdom, no new world, nothing to look forward to,”
You know, I keep on hearing the claim that slavery from back then was different, but , well, there is one really big piece about that claim that is missing. That's known as 'evidence'.
Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. Whereas the non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son (Le 25:44-46),
the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his servitude or in the Jubilee year, depending upon which came first. During the time of his servitude the Hebrew slave was to be treated as a hired laborer. (Ex 21:2; Le 25:10; De 15:12)
A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery to an alien resident, to a member of an alien resident’s family, or to a settler could be repurchased at any time, either by himself or by one having the right of repurchase. The redemption price was based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee year or until the seventh year of servitude. (Le 25:47-52; De 15:12)
When granting a Hebrew slave his freedom, the master was to give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman. (De 15:13-15)
If a slave had come in with a wife, the wife went out with him. However, if the master had given him a wife (evidently a foreign woman who would not be entitled to freedom in the seventh year of servitude), she and any children by her remained the property of the master. In such a case the Hebrew slave could choose to remain with his master. His ear would then be pierced with an awl to indicate that he would continue in servitude to time indefinite.—Ex 21:2-6; De 15:16, 17.
It really is an unfair comparison to make between slavery in the past and slavery today. The two could not be more different.
The bible does condone slavery but in its favour the bible also made it clear that slaves should be treated humanely.
The reason the bible condoned slavery is because in those days slavery was essential to idea of civilisation. Without slavery city states of large population could not exist.
In these modern times slavery is no longer essential. Machinery can do what slaves used to do. To feed a city in the time of jesus would have taken the effort of thousands of men. If they were paid workers the price of a loaf of bread would be such that only the very rich could eat. With slavery the food could be grown cheaply enough for all to afford. Now days a tractor and one man can grow what a hundred slaves would have done.
We no longer need slavery and that is why in today's world it is an evil while in the past it was necessary.
The bible should not be condemned for giving consent to what was then considered a necessary part of life. It should be praised at least for suggesting that we treat slaves well.
However i cannot let a post on religion go by without having something bad to say about that silly book of yours or just how evil christians really are.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/february/freedom-in-christ-how-this-bible-was-used-to-manipulate
.
In cannot be denied that christians were quite willing to lie to keep slaves in there place. Even to the point of editing the bible. And is that not the greater issue than whether slavery is different today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?