Great Job Bible

[Dakatsu]

So the bible approves of slavery, apparently...

Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 )

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 )

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. \"But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.\" (Luke 12:47-48 )

I heard that these verses are some of the many that the South used to defend slavery in the civil war. Look how many people died of that? Seriously, even my girlfriend finds this repulsive, and she is a devout Catholic AND she has me wear a slave collar and leash. Who wants to try to defend this?

[Will Robinson]

...I heard that these verses are some of the many that the South used to defend slavery in the civil war. Look how many people died of that?...

The civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about federal meddling in the souths economy. Lincoln just threw freeing the slaves in as a strategic manuver to disrupt the souths war machine, in fact I think at one point they were suggesting freeing only the slaves held in the south, keeping ownership of those in the north intact! That's right, the north held slaves too.
Slavery was defended by many of the founders of this country long before the civil war to the point that at the constitutional convention they realized if they tried to put in abolishing slavery there would be no constitution!

So quit trying to blame the carnage of the civil war on southerners or even southern slave holders it only proves you don't know the history or you are looking for an excuse to bash the south along with the christians.

And last time I looked there is no book of Bubba or Ricky Bobby in the bible....

By the way, one might look at the passages you quote and think isn't it encouraging how, unlike other religions, christianity has evolved so much over the centuries. Well one might if he wasn't to busy looking for bait to troll with anyway! Great job Dakatsu!

[dissent]

The Luke quote is from a parable, and support for slavery is not the point of the parable, so exactly what was your point there. As for the rest, why are you surprised that documents written almost two thousand years ago mention slavery as an active practice. Slavery has been a common feature of human interactions for many thousands of years, and still exists today, though under the approval of fewer world powers.

Little be it from me to try to defend how the Confederates, or anyone else for that matter, used the Bible to support human slavery. You are a young person, and I would like to suggest that if you are planning study of the Bible that you consider reading some good commentaries on various related subjects, to help you put things into some context. I can recommend some Catholic ones. Let me know.

Besides, all 'o my folks from back then was Yankees.

[Jeff250]

IIRC, the typical response to this one is that no where does it explicitly authorize slavery--it just says some things about how slavery should be done.

Technically, this solves the problem, but I think it's a weasel-like solution. Because I don't think its enough to just be able to come up with complicated explanations to all of the Bible's ostensible problems time and time again that may or may not work. Ultimately, I think we need to ask ourselves when reading it, Is this literature really apt to be attributed to the divine? Is this really as good as it can get?

I think God needs an editor.

[Firewheel]

This is stupid. The point is that slaves should be obedient to their masters, just like you should be obedient to you employer/boss/parents, etc. Not all believers were in ideal circumstances, mind you, and the whole point was to encourage slaves who were Christians, and for them to set a good example for their masters (as backwards as that sounds.)

It isn't the same thing as endorsing slavery, though it can certainly be misused to that effect. If you actually had any understanding of the context, and audience these verses were written to, then this conversation wouldn't be happening.

[CUDA]

This is stupid. The point is that slaves should be obedient to their masters, just like you should be obedient to you employer/boss/parents, etc. Not all believers were in ideal circumstances, mind you, and the whole point was to encourage slaves who were Christians, and for them to set a good example for their masters (as backwards as that sounds.)

It isn't the same thing as endorsing slavery, though it can certainly be misused to that effect. If you actually had any understanding of the context, and audience these verses were written to, then this conversation wouldn't be happening.

well said Firewheel. this is about how as a Christian you should deal with a situation. it is not about condoning or approving of slavery

[Flabby Chick]

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/Why ... 10-02.html

[Admiral Thrawn]

People who use the scriptures as a basis for slavery fail to realize out of ignorance the type of sitation slavery was back then versus slavery as we know it.

The bible also gave direction and advice for the masters of slaves as well to not be cruel, etc... For those who find those scriptures repulsive, I suggest you do research and find out what type of slavery it was and the circumstances behind it, and you will feel that it is a lot different from the slavery that we experience in this nation.

[Duper]

Will. just wanted to interject a woot for your history lesson on the civil war. Not many folks are aware of that point about slavery. It was something that was the focus well after the war was well under way.

[Mobius]

I think God needs an editor.

You think he hasn't had a ton of 'em already?

You think that the authors of the bible were, quite literally "god's stenographers" and that the bible is literally "the word of god"?

Puh-lease. History isn't that dumb, and the lineage of the bible is quite well known, and it has changed a very great deal in the last 1800 years. Mostly editors were trying to remove internal inconsistencies and strengthen christian doctrine - but they weren't very good scholars - so the bible is still rife with problems, inconsistencies and lets not start that doctrine discussion shall we?

[FunkyStickman]

Fact is, Mobius, most modern translations of the Bible are just that... modern translations of some of the oldest documents known to man, from the original Greek and Hebrew. You can even buy a Bible in the original languages, and most preachers I know have one. Most of the \"inconsistencies\" you're thinking of are myths, or taken out of context, like the Bible \"condoning\" slavery.

Most people I know that swear the Bible is full of errors only know a few passages, and haven't actually read most of it, nor do they know the history surrounding it and how it applies to each book. I'm not saying anybody here fits that description, but when people start spouting off about it, I immediately suspect their motives.

To paraphrase my New Testament professor, \"The Bible *does not* mean now what it would not have meant then.\" Everything, once taken into context as to how it applies to the people, places, and times to which it was written, makes perfect sense to me.

[Jeff250]

Which original language text do you prefer? UBS2? 3? 4? Maybe you're from the Textus Receptus camp?

I think that the modern translations like the NIV, although much more textually honest, tend to aid skeptics in criticizing the Bible even more.

I like this part in the NIV:

The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.

Something like verses 9-20 aren't just accidentally introduced via copyist error. This part had to have been intentionally editted in. (As of interesting note, Mark is believed to be the oldest Gospel and verses 9-20 contain the resurrection story.)

Also, compare an older version like the KJV versus the NIV with 1 John 5:7 as well:

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

7For there are three that testify:
8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Again, it's kinda hard to insert a large chunck of text like this via a copyist's error, so it's necessary that somebody editted manuscripts to include this. (Of an interesting note, many Jehovah's Witnesses use this as evidence that the doctrine of the trinity isn't authentic.)

Now my point is that the Bible has undergone revisions, and it's only in recent times that we've significantly begun "fixing" the Bible back. I wonder how we'll know when we're finished?

[Firewheel]

This topic seems to come up all the time, and someone (usually Lothar) invariably ends up owning Mobius. So I'm not going to bother saying what's already been said dozens of times before.

[Kilarin]

This topic seems to come up all the time

Yep. For one such discussion try this topic.

You have to look at these text in historical context. The rules that the Israelites were given about slavery, the treatment of women, etc, were superior to the way things were being done before. And even at this level, the people often failed to follow the rules. If they had been given more rigid rules, they probably would have simply ignored them altogether. Actually, for many of the rules they DID simply ignore them. For example, take the "Year of Jubilee", where one of the things that was supposed to happen was that slaves were set free. Unfortunately there is NO evidence that the Israelites EVER kept a single year of Jubilee. They found it too much, so it appears that most of the time, and perhaps even all of the time, they simply ignored it.

God was taking people to a better ethical level in baby steps because that was the biggest steps people would take.

[Jeff250]

This topic seems to come up all the time, and someone (usually Lothar) invariably ends up owning Mobius. So I'm not going to bother saying what's already been said dozens of times before.

As far as I know, any previous topics on this issue address something like the question, "Is the Bible to a fair extent reliable," but this is seperate question from whether or not the Bible has been edited. If you accept any modern Christian scholarship or any modern translation of the Bible, you have to accept that it has been edited, and in some cases even, what I would deem considerably. (I mentioned the Mark and 1 John cases in my former post because I personally consider them just that--to be considerable alterations.)

[Firewheel]

Ah, thanks, Kilarin, that's what I was thinking of.

[Kilarin]

"Is the Bible to a fair extent reliable," but this is seperate question from whether or not the Bible has been edited.

I don't see why they are different questions. Has the bible been edited is part of the question of how reliable is the Bible.

[Jeff250]

Two things. One, you could argue that the Bible was edited but that we have actually found out and reverted any revision back to its original text, so it's still reliable.

Also, I compared the question of it being edited to the question, \"Is the Bible to a fair extent reliable,\" meaning that even if you did believe that it was edited, you could still argue that it repeats itself often enough such that you can still get the originally intended doctrine out of it, if not the originally intended text. Or that the edited parts aren't really important parts. Or give any argument really that admits to the Bible being edited but downplays the problem so that it is still reliable as a whole.

Now, my intention isn't to refute any of the above arguments, because I don't think that there are solid ways to assert or refute them. But I did want to point out some points of interest where modern (Christian even) scholarship agrees the Bible was edited.

[Lothar]

Everyone here has been around long enough to have heard what I have to say about Biblical reliability and manuscript history, and I'm not interested in repeating it for those who have remained willfully ignorant (yes, Mobi, I'm calling you willfully ignorant. Because you ARE.) So, I'm not going to repeat myself; the board's \"search\" function might be broken, but google isn't.

Instead, let me address the original point:

The Bible talks about a lot of things -- slavery, genocide, murder, rape, suicide, war, incest, and so on. It's a history book; what do you expect? Sometimes people go on about the Bible and (one of the above topics) as if it's the Bible's fault, as if everyone treated everyone great and then the Bible came along and ruined it.

There are a few mistakes people make when looking at the Bible and slavery:

- assuming the Bible was written in English, verse-by-verse, and that therefore reading a single verse in whatever Bible version you happen to be reading accurately communicates the original meaning. Unless you're reading a VERY good translation AND you're practicing good reading habits (reading whole sections rather than individual verses), don't expect ANY book to make sense.

- assuming that, because a topic is mentioned, it's completely approved of. Slavery is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it was viewed as a particularly good thing. It, like genocide and rape, was a part of the history.

- assuming \"slaves\" or \"bondservants\" or \"servants\" in Bible times were similar to \"slaves\" in the south in the 1800's. The Old Testament actually sets forth terms for acquiring slaves, and for how to treat them (with an explicit command that if a mistreated slave ran away, he should NOT be returned, but should live freely), and for how and when to release them from service. It even has a section on how, if a slave decides he wants to continue serving his master because he loves his master, he can do so. Slaves were typically like long-term contract employees. (The Luke passage from the original post makes this pretty obvious.) New Testament slavery followed the Greco-Roman model, which was still significantly better than what we think of as slavery. Christians are told to be \"slaves to Christ\" or \"slaves to righteousness\" many, many times. Those phrases don't even make sense with the civil war definition of slavery.

- reading the NT commands given to slaves without understanding what the whole passage is about. Both the Timothy and Ephesians passages are in the middle of descriptions of how people should react to one another based on social position. The gist of it is \"everyone, treat everyone right.\" In other words, it's assumed that some people are already slaves, and it tells them AND their masters how to act ethically toward each other. (Paul wrote a letter to Philemon, about treating his slave Onesimus \"as a dear brother\" when he returned. He didn't exactly command Onesimus to be released, but he didn't leave Philemon any wiggle room either!)

- reading the passages about various social positions while ignoring the VERY progressive passages in the Bible about how everyone is equal, despite social / political position. The Bible says many times that people should not treat people differently for being slaves/free, men/women, Greek/Jewish/other, and so on. So when it does address husbands and wives, or slaves and masters, or Greeks and Jews, those passages have to be read with the understanding that the Bible was commanding a form of equality we didn't see anywhere else in the world until the 1800's. After commanding that sort of equality, it goes on to tell people who don't yet have it how they should interact -- with love and gentleness, rather than anger and hostility.

Is this literature really apt to be attributed to the divine? Being 1800 years ahead of the curve doesn't exactly prove it, but it should at least make you think twice about dismissing the rest of what it has to say.

[Jeff250]

So when it does address husbands and wives, or slaves and masters, or Greeks and Jews, those passages have to be read with the understanding that the Bible was commanding a form of equality we didn't see anywhere else in the world until the 1800's. After commanding that sort of equality, it goes on to tell people who don't yet have it how they should interact -- with love and gentleness, rather than anger and hostility.

Is this literature really apt to be attributed to the divine? Being 1800 years ahead of the curve doesn't exactly prove it, but it should at least make you think twice about dismissing the rest of what it has to say.

Sure, this kind of idea of equality a la Galatians 3:28 wasn't really politically implemented until the 1800's, but the idea itself definitely predates Christianity, largely by the Stoics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoics

The claim that God is teaching man in ethical baby steps doesn't really work when man is beating God to the punch.

[Duper]

Ephesians 3:28 ??? There is no Eph 3:28!

[Duper]

Ephesians 3:28 ??? There is no Eph 3:28!

as I recall where slavery was concerned, Slaves were to be set free every 7 years according to Mosaic law. They were to be treated civily as well. Preferably kindly like a family member.

Genocide (if you want to call it that) was commanded of Isreal by God after the crossing of the Jordan. Now, I don't think that would be the case. Since the new covenant, circumstance have changed.

[Jeff250]

Sorry, I meant Galatians 3:28 and have corrected the post.

[Lothar]

the idea itself definitely predates Christianity

of course it does. Ethical treatment of "lessers" also appears in the Jewish scriptures, as does equality under the Law -- in stark contrast to other codes of the time. The Stoics most definitely don't predate Moses.

The claim that God is teaching man in ethical baby steps doesn't really work when man is beating God to the punch.

Several responses:

1) I never claimed God only taught the Jews, or that God's direct teaching is the only way to get to morally excellent positions. God set up a universe that's accessible to reason, and God does touch a wide variety of people. So it should come as no surprise that sometimes people other than the Jews would have good ideas.

2) There's nothing contradictory about God teaching man in ethical baby steps, and some small subset of man occasionally getting out ahead. If you've ever been a teacher, you'll understand exactly how this works -- you bring the whole group along slowly, and sometimes individuals have insights that put them out ahead.

3) The Stoics didn't have any particularly new insight beyond what's present in the OT. It's stated more clearly in the Wiki article and in the NT than it is in the OT, but the ideas were there even before. (Props to the Stoics for also being a couple thousand years ahead of society in general, though.)

4) As I said, this certainly doesn't prove divine influence -- but it should make you think twice about dismissing the rest of the text.

[Shoku]

OMG!! Here we go again!

Of all the posts I have read, Admiral Thrawn, Kilarin, and Lothar have each presented quite effectively (Lothar being the most expository) an accurate response to the question of slavery and the Bible. One point that was briefly mentioned is also one of the most important in any discussion of the ancient world: Context. Specificly, HISTORICAL context.

Slavery in the ancient world (which means the entire ancient world, not just ancient Israel), was part of everyday life - from Greece to India, and beyond. Everyone working today for an EMPLOYER would be considered a SLAVE in the ancient world. There were no \"employment opportunities,\" in the ancient world. There were many opportuniuties for \"slaves\" in many cultures. Many \"slaves\" had \"slaves\" of their own, and many, like Joseph in Egypt, or Daniel in Babylon, were placed in oversight positions with great power over others, or with great influence in the daily affairs of their masters - and yet they were \"slaves.\"

One type of \"slave\" in ancinet Greece was called a \"pedagog.\" This \"slave\" was in charge of teaching the \"master's\" children, and he was also responsible for the child's welfare - he was the child's protector (a \"body guard\" in modern terms). Obviously a position of great responsibility, not derogatory servitude.

The apostle Paul used the analogy of a pedagog in his letter to the Galatians when discussing the benefits of the Law of Moses.

In short, when studying ancient things, one must cast off modern concepts to understand correctly the things written by ancient minds.

[Isaac]

If you're white all of our families have had slaves at some point... lets go kill our great great great gr....... grandparents!!! They're evil!!!!

[Jeff250]

I grabbed the following from Leviticus 25:

25:39 “‘If your brother becomes impoverished with regard to you so that he sells himself to you, you must not subject him to slave service.75 25:40 He must be with you as a hired worker, as a resident foreigner;76 he must serve with you until the year of jubilee, 25:41 but then77 he may go free,78 he and his children with him, and may return to his family and to the property of his ancestors.79 25:42 Since they are my servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt, they must not be sold in a slave sale.80 25:43 You must not rule over him harshly,81 but you must fear your God.

25:44 “‘As for your male and female slaves 82 who may belong to you – you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you. 83 25:45 Also you may buy slaves 84 from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are 85 with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property. 25:46 You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly. 86

25:47 “‘If a resident foreigner who is with you prospers87 and your brother becomes impoverished with regard to him so that88 he sells himself to a resident foreigner who is with you or to a member89 of a foreigner’s family, 25:48 after he has sold himself he retains a right of redemption.90

Here's what I get from this:

First, the first paragraph seems to distinguish between slavery and being a hired worker.

"If your brother becomes impoverished with regard to you so that he sells himself to you, you must not subject him to slave service.75 25:40 He must be with you as a hired worker..."

Moreover, it especially seems to stigmatize being a slave.

"Since they are my servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt, they must not be sold in a slave sale."

It also looks like there were two categories of slaves in OT law:
(1) Hebrew servants and (2) foreign slaves

Hebrew servants were:
(a) indentured to pay off debt
(b) explicitely extended the right to be freed on the year of jubilee
(c) explicitely extended the right of redemption (to buy your own freedom)
However, foreign slaves were:
(a) bought with only the qualification that they were foreign and that they were slaves
(b) neither explicitely extended the right to be freed on the year of jubilee
(c) nor explicitely extended the right to redeem themselves
Both 2.b and 2.c are best illustrated here:
"You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property."
"You may enslave them perpetually."

But I've learned when it comes to the Bible that the obvious interpretation is never the right one, so where did I go wrong?

[Shoku]

But I've learned when it comes to the Bible that the obvious interpretation is never the right one, so where did I go wrong?

AS I mentioned in my earlier post: "Slavery" in the ancient world had a broad meaning. Some slaves were more like endentured servants, some more like modern executives, but without the option of changing employers at will, and yet there were also those who were brutalized, and whipped into hard service, which is the typical view of "slavery."

Slavery and the Israelites

The Bible states that “man has dominated man to his injury.” (Ecclesiastes 8:9) This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the oppressive forms of slavery that have been devised by man. God is not indifferent to the suffering that slavery has wrought.

For example, consider a situation that developed with the Israelites. The Bible tells us that the Egyptians “kept making their life bitter with hard slavery at clay mortar and bricks and with every form of slavery in the field, yes, every form of slavery of theirs in which they used them as slaves under tyranny.” The Israelites “continued to sigh because of the slavery and to cry out in complaint, and their cry for help kept going up to the true God.” Was God indifferent to their plight? On the contrary, “God heard their groaning and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Furthermore, the LORD told his people: “I shall certainly bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from their slavery.”—Exodus 1:14; 2:23, 24; 6:6-8.

Clearly, God did not approve of ‘man dominating man’ through abusive slavery. But did not God later allow slavery among his people? Yes, he did. However, the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout history.

God’s Law stated that kidnapping and selling a human was punishable by death. Furthermore, God provided guidelines to protect slaves. For example, a slave who was maimed by his master would be set free. If a slave died because his master beat him, the master could be punished with death. Women captives could become slaves, or they could be taken as wives. But they were not to be used for mere sexual gratification. The gist of the Law must have led righthearted Israelites to treat slaves with respect and kindness, as if these were hired laborers.—Exodus 20:10; 21:12, 16, 26, 27; Leviticus 22:10, 11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

Some Jews voluntarily became slaves to their fellow Jews in order to repay debts. This practice protected people from starvation and actually allowed many to recover from poverty. Furthermore, at key junctures in the Jewish calendar, slaves were to be released if they so desired. (Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:12) Commenting on these laws regarding slaves, Jewish scholar Moses Mielziner stated that a “slave could never cease to be a man, he was looked upon as a person possessing certain natural human rights, with which the master even could not with impunity interfere.” What a stark contrast to the abusive systems of slavery that mar the annals of history!


Slavery and Christians

Slavery was part of the economic system of the Roman Empire, under which first-century Christians lived. Hence, some Christians were slaves, and others had slaves. (1 Corinthians 7:21, 22) But does this mean that disciples of Jesus were abusive slave owners? Hardly! Regardless of what Roman law permitted, we can be confident that Christians did not mistreat those under their authority. The apostle Paul even encouraged Philemon to treat his slave Onesimus, who had become a Christian, as “a brother.”—Philemon 10-17.

The Bible gives no indication that the enslavement of humans by other humans was part of God’s original purpose for mankind. Furthermore, no Bible prophecies allude to humans owning fellow humans through slavery in God’s new world. Rather, in that coming Paradise, righteous ones “will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making them tremble.”—Micah 4:4.

Clearly, the Bible does not condone the ill-treatment of others in any form. On the contrary, it encourages respect and equality among men. (Acts 10:34, 35) It exhorts humans to treat others the way that they would like to be treated. (Luke 6:31) Moreover, the Bible encourages Christians humbly to view others as superior, regardless of their social standing. (Philippians 2:3) These principles are totally incongruous with abusive forms of slavery practiced by many nations, especially in recent centuries

Slavery had a much broader meaning in the ancient world. The Israelites, by the Law given to them through Moses, civilized (for lack of a better term) the practice of owning individuals, and unlike the surrounding pagan nations, placed a time limit upon which anyone could be indebted to anyone else. How many people today are enslaved to their credit company by chioce? How many people actually own their new car? Their new house? Working to pay off these types of debts is just another form of slavery, similar to the israelite custom of selling oneself to pay off a debt.

Many customs and traditions were tolerated by God. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, and yet God did not reject them for doing so, but they did suffer the consequences. (Again, the Law later given by Moses condenms selling humans. God's toleration is evident by Jesus words about divorce: see Matthew 19:3 -9)

[Ford Prefect]

Shoku:

Slavery had a much broader meaning in the ancient world. The Israelites, by the Law given to them through Moses, civilized (for lack of a better term) the practice of owning individuals, and unlike the surrounding pagan nations, placed a time limit upon which anyone could be indebted to anyone else.

Actually that statment is not supported by the reference from Leviticus given. The limit was only placed on fellow Jews. All others were excluded and you can own them and their families as long as you like.
Speak to the reference not what you wish it said.

[Lothar]

Shoku:

Slavery had a much broader meaning in the ancient world. The Israelites, by the Law given to them through Moses, civilized (for lack of a better term) the practice of owning individuals, and unlike the surrounding pagan nations, placed a time limit upon which anyone could be indebted to anyone else.

Actually that statment is not supported by the reference from Leviticus given. The limit was only placed on fellow Jews. All others were excluded and you can own them and their families as long as you like.
Speak to the reference not what you wish it said.

The Leviticus passage above is not the only passage on slavery. Some of what Shoku and I addressed above came from other passages, though I can't find any reference to freeing non-Hebrew slaves.

Exodus 21 cover the rights of male and female Hebrew servants as detailed above, and also requires that females who are bought as wives must not have food, clothing, or sex reduced if the dude takes another wife. It also specifies that kidnapping anyone (whether to sell them or keep them as your own slave) is punishable by death, and that any slave whose master causes significant injury must be freed. Deuteronomy 23:15 specifies that escaped slaves are not to be returned to their masters.

But, as far as I can tell (it's been 5 years since I studied this particular section of the Bible) Jeff's characterization that non-Hebrew slaves could be held perpetually is correct. They were still entitled to significant rights, but not freed every 7 years. Shoku, do you have more to say on this?

[Kilarin]

And, as the others have tried to point out, please realize that, bizzare as it sounds, slavery was sometimes a BETTER option in the ancient world.

I DETEST slavery. I detest the fact that the US cooperates with countries that still practice slavery. But in the ancient world, when you one nation conquered another, the options were usually slavery or death. If God had not left the option of slavery open, the result would have probably been a lot more slaughter. I don't like it, but it was the way things were.

[Shoku]

Speak to the reference not what you wish it said.

Actually I did, but I was so focused on the Israelites I overlooked the point about non-Israelites. You are correct, the LAW did permit Israelites to posses slaves and pass them on to their sons as an inheritence.

I can't find any reference to freeing non-Hebrew slaves.

Under LAW Israelite slaves in Israel could be freed either by purchase or by the Jubilee year. -Leviticus 25:10, 39 -54. There was no provision for freeing non-Israelite slaves.

The reason for this distinction between Israelite and non-Israelite is mentioned at Leviticus 25:55:

"For to me the sons of Israel are slaves. They are my slaves whom I bought out of the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God."

No one has a right to possess what God already owns.

And this is the intent of the LAW - to separate Israel from the surrounding pagan nations. They were God's chosen people, a people for special possession, so the "rules" are different for them.

Slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient world. It was viewed as a natural state of affairs - just as a man having more than one wife was considered normal, or the fact that the dead soldiers of a defeated enemy were ALWAYS stripped of everything and left naked in the field.

God tolerated many customs, and dealt with Israel in a manner they could understand and appreciate, without overwhelming them suddenly with concepts forgien to their world view - the LAW was enough to contend with, without prematurely forcing them to accept concepts that could have driven many away.

God has always revealed his purpose gradually. And because of this, he has ALWAYS tolerated customs he finds distasteful - afterall, he is dealing with sinful men. Allowing slavery should be no more suprising than allowing divorce, something God has always detested. (See Mathew 19: 3-9)

Even Jesus told his disiples, "I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present." -John 16:12 And that's the crux of it - revelation is gradual, because the sheep would flee and die if forced too fast into change.

But regarding slavery in Israel: while foreigners were slaves for life, they were under the same protections as Israelite slaves. Protections delineated in the LAW that not only separated Israel from the surrounding nations, but also forced them to treat with kindness even those slaves taken as spoils of war.

[Jeff250]

Could you expound then specifically on the rights given to foreign slaves?

[Lothar]

Could you expound then specifically on the rights given to foreign slaves?

If I didn't specifically say "Hebrew slaves" assume I was referring to all slaves. Or, heck, check the references provided. Read; the information is all there.

[Ford Prefect]

Is the real question here whether or not to take the bible literally? Clearly no one in our modern society finds slavery an acceptable practice but the bible accepts and supports it's existence as noted above. The bible also has other passages that encourage practices that would not be accepted today.
So if the bible is not the literal truth we have to decide how to interpret and apply the messages in today's world, And that often involves deciding who's interpretation is \"right\". It is a slippery slope once you start changing the application of a rule based on what you or someone else \"thinks\" a rule really means. Hence we have creationists who believe the earth is only 10,000 years old.
I think that if you can't take the text as literal truth then you might as well become Buddhist and admit that you are just following one of the thousandfold paths to enlightenment.

[Lothar]

Is the real question here whether or not to take the bible literally?

Nope; that's a question that's been answered many times (though not in the short form you're looking for.)

Clearly no one in our modern society finds slavery an acceptable practice but the bible accepts and supports it's existence as noted above. The bible also has other passages that encourage practices that would not be accepted today.

Right. So, the question is, what does the Bible actually say about the practice, how do we understand what it says, and what does that indicate to us about the moral soundness of the Bible? I suggest reading the previous posts if you're curious as to the answer to most of that.

that often involves deciding who's interpretation is "right"

Interpretation is not a magical, mystical thing. Good interpretation is simply getting the meaning out of text that an author put into it, without adding additional meaning to it. It's not magic; it's scholarship. Interpretation (of anything) is a discipline.

It's poor scholarship to say "the Bible mentions slavery, therefore, the Bible is pro-slavery." It's equally poor scholarship to say "the Bible mentions slavery, but I'm going to pretend it doesn't." My wife developed a whole course around the idea of Biblical interpretation. Would you be interested in looking over it?

[Jeff250]

It also specifies that kidnapping anyone (whether to sell them or keep them as your own slave) is punishable by death

Well, I think that this one is more appropriately considered a right of a free person (to not be kidnapped and turned into a slave) than the right of a foreign slave.

that any slave whose master causes significant injury must be freed.

This is what I found, which says this of any slave who loses an eye or a tooth due to mistreatment:

21:26 “If a man strikes the eye of his male servant or his female servant so that he destroys it, 54 he will let the servant 55 go free 56 as compensation for the eye. 21:27 If he knocks out the tooth of his male servant or his female servant, he will let the servant 57 go free as compensation for the tooth.

But now according to a verse in the same chapter, it seems that a slave can suffer any beating so long as he survives for at least "one or two days" after it (and also presumably so long as he does not lose an eye or tooth a la verse 26):

“If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she 45 dies as a result of the blow, 46 he will surely be punished. 47 21:21 However, if the injured servant 48 survives one or two days, the owner 49 will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss. 50

How does that translate into treating slaves with kindness?

Deuteronomy 23:15 specifies that escaped slaves are not to be returned to their masters.

Indeed, it seems to:

23:15 You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. 23 23:16 Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages 24 he prefers; you must not oppress him.

However, I looked up some commentaries, which seemed to indicate one of two positions. This is referring to slaves who are escaping from either idolatrous masters or Canaanite masters (or foreign nations in general). Neither of these seem to be textually supported, but these interpretations seem to be under the thinking that the straightforward interpretation that any escaped slave should be freed seems to be at odds with the rest of the law. For example, in Leviticus, the law indicated that a person could own a foreign slave perpetually and even will them to their children, yet these verses from Deuteronomy seem to be at odds with that. What's your interpretation of this?

[Ford Prefect]

Lothar:

My wife developed a whole course around the idea of Biblical interpretation. Would you be interested in looking over it?

Given the incredibly high standard of both you and Drakona's scholarship I suspect I would be doomed to a D-.
Christianity contains sects that range from Snake Handlers in the woods of Mississippi to gay female ministers in the United Church of Canada and yet all use the bible as their reference and justification. Interpretaion seems more of an art than a science to me.

[Lothar]

Christianity contains sects that range from Snake Handlers in the woods of Mississippi to gay female ministers in the United Church of Canada and yet all use the bible as their reference and justification. Interpretaion seems more of an art than a science to me.

That's because many sects practice it like an art rather than a science. Many people also practice science like art rather than science. Doesn't change the underlying science, though, just means that people are dumb.

Anyway... the notes are posted here. At the very least, I'd recommend looking over week 1's notes on the nature of communication and interpretation (not specific to the Bible.) That should give you some idea of the sort of scholarship one can apply to interpretation.

according to a verse in the same chapter, it seems that a slave can suffer any beating so long as he survives for at least "one or two days" after it

So, what do you make of those verses all together?

What I make of those verses is that people are allowed to hit their slaves, but expected to show significant restraint when doing so. They're not allowed to injure or kill their slave, even accidentally. If they do so, they lose their rights to that slave. Furthermore, if the killing of the slave was intentional (the slave surviving for several days suggests an accident, while immediate death suggests intent -- murder vs manslaughter) there is additional punishment. This is a far cry from the "pure personal property" view of slaves.

I looked up some commentaries, which seemed to indicate... escaping from either idolatrous masters or Canaanite masters [because] the straightforward interpretation that any escaped slave should be freed seems to be at odds with the rest of the law.

I don't see it at odds at all; I see it as part of the complete picture. We don't need to suppose anything beyond what the text says in that passage, because we already know some things from other passages. The expectation is that owners will treat their slaves well. If they mistreat their slaves to the point of injury/death they lose their right to have those slaves. If they mistreat a slave to the point that the slave runs away, they lose their right to that slave. The moral of the story: treat them like contract workers, not like objects.

[Ford Prefect]

Well it seems that we have determined that there is biblical support for owning slaves provided you are a Jew, don't hold other Jews forever, keep them chained up because you won't get them back if the escape and if you are into beating them you had better take a page from The Marathon Man and do it without causing damage. And it is possible to replace the word Jew with other nationalities as long as you don't hold Jews as slaves.
But since most of the people that are claiming a religion here would claim to be Christian. W.W.J.D. must apply and even over ride the Old Testament. Now even I know that Jesus would tell you to obey the local laws so if slavery is illegal in the country you are in then you shouldn't do it. But perhaps you live in a failed state and laws are a bit hard to come by. What would a Christian recommend to the local constitutional assembly trying to work out a new set of rules? Was Jesus recorded as saying something relevant?