Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 157
  1. #121
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If "matters" here means "is rationally justified", then I'd say others' views here definitely "matter", but yours simply don't fit that criteria.
    Awesome. I guess I'll just be on my merry way then.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  2. #122
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Awesome. I guess I'll just be on my merry way then.
    I truly don't get what was the point/goal of this response, other than as a petty last word.

    If you refuse to respond to the points made against your arguments and address the portions of my post which you ignored, and instead choose to take a single sentence about your view on a specific item being irrelevant (ignoring the explanation/justification provided for that) as a blanket attack on all of your arguments (again, ignoring the actual responses made to those), then it's clear you don't want to have an honest discussion about what it means for the bible to sanction slavery.

    Your attempt to twist the discussion in this way and hide behind a fabricated bias against your arguments only shows that you have no rational response to the fact that your holy book sanctions something immoral.

  3. #123
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    It's still not clear why the "give authority" definition is listed as the primary in multiple online sources, and without any indication regarding requirement, as I have been using it - I'm waiting on those sources to respond and clarify.
    I think it has been related to the increasing limitation of this word to the legislative context. In the legislative context Congress "gives authority" to by passing a mandate which mandates the activity. I think one of the professors explained it well. It gives the agency authority to act vis a vis citizens, and requires their actions vis a vis congress.

    Regardless, I think you current phrasing is clear;

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    1. The bible explicitly sanctions slavery.
    Being that we are now on page 7 of the thread and I believe we've had a few changes in the argument as it has evolved with discussion, could you restate your formal argument again? I just want to be sure I'm responding to the correct premises and structure and no strawmanning you. I'll work on the rest of your response in the meantime, but it might be helpful to better understand the argument you are defending.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #124
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    For the sake of simplicity, #1 is the only thing which has been changed.

    Slavery is defined as: "owning a person as property".

    1. The bible explicitly sanctions slavery.
    2. The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery.

    Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.

  5. #125
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    For the sake of simplicity, #1 is the only thing which has been changed.

    Slavery is defined as: "owning a person as property".

    1. The bible explicitly sanctions slavery.
    2. The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery.

    Given the above, the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.
    Ok. Allow me to reframe it a tiny bit to help clarify for me.

    Defintion: all slavery in this thread is referring to "chattel slavery."

    P1) The Bible explicitly sanctions chattel slavery.

    P2) The Bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to chattel slavery.

    C1) The Bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.


    The problem with this argument is that it doesn't follow. We can see that if we replace the word slavery with something less emotionally charged.

    P1) The Bible explicitly sanctions eating apples.

    P2) The Bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to eating apples.

    C1) The Bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.


    Obviously there is a premise missing there. P3 arguing that the action X is immoral. (You can actually do away with P2 to be honest since P1 serves the same purpose).

    So how would you phrase your P3 arguing that would tie P1 to the conclusion?
    Last edited by Squatch347; October 23rd, 2017 at 01:02 PM.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #126
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok. Allow me to reframe it a tiny bit to help clarify for me.
    Squatch, you're an intelligent grown-up - I simply don't buy this nonsense that the OP needs to be clarified for you. You know exactly what's going on here and what the OP is talking about, so quit playing games. That's of course assuming you hold that owning people as property is immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Defintion: all slavery in this thread is referring to "chattel slavery."
    Please note that your URL automatically re-directs to the definition of simply "slavery", which is in line with the OPs definition. Whether what the bible sanctions is or isn't something different which you call "chattel slavery" is completely irrelevant. The OP clearly defines slavery, and that's what the bible sanctions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P3 arguing that the action X is immoral.
    Do you hold that owning people as property is not immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You can actually do away with P2 to be honest since P1 serves the same purpose.
    No, I'd prefer to leave it there since in my experience theists will often argue against #1 by quoting verses in the bible which imply that slavery is wrong according to the bible (Philemon is a popular response). #2 therefore states right off the bat that there's no clear moral opposition to slavery.

  7. #127
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Squatch, you're an intelligent grown-up - I simply don't buy this nonsense that the OP needs to be clarified for you.
    I understand why it might feel like I'm playing games, but I'm being honest here. I want to help us clarify the actual argument in order to move the debate forward. It does neither of us any good if we are simply yelling past each other because we both think the OP means something it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Please note that your URL automatically re-directs to the definition of simply "slavery", which is in line with the OPs definition. Whether what the bible sanctions is or isn't something different which you call "chattel slavery" is completely irrelevant. The OP clearly defines slavery, and that's what the bible sanctions.
    You are absolutely right, I copied the wrong link. I've corrected it now. I actually think this is a relatively small point of distinction we can come to resolution on. You argue that what you mean by slavery is "owning a person as property." I am simply pointing out that in the range of what can be meant by the word "slavery" the form that means "owning a person as property" is specifically referred to as the chattel variant. That is literally what chattel means, being owned as. It literally means that the person is owned as form of personal property.

    You've objected to the term chattel, but agreed with its definition. I think there is a problem with not clarifying that concept because you are applying it in a manner prone to cause equivocation fallacies. It is like saying the term "red" but then defining it as this specific hex code: #FF0800. Is that red? Sure, but so is #B22222. If you want that specific red, you can go by its more specific name, Candy Apple Red. Likewise, if we want to specifically only talk about the kind of slavery that has people being owned personally as property, then we should call it by the generally accepted term, chattel slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Do you hold that owning people as property is not immoral?
    The argument isn't mine to posit. It was your OP, not mine. If you don't want to offer a supporting premise, we can end the thread now with the clear point that you failed to offer a coherent argument.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #128
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Perhaps a better way to approach this disconnect is for us to review the thread for the most recent agreed formulation of the OP. The most recent (and it seems more or less accepted) formulation was in post 32. I've refined it a bit to better fit what I understand your defintions to be and remove a sub-premise by making it integral to P1. To whit:

    P1) The Bible explicitely sanctions slavery (of the chattel variety, or where a person is owned as property, the two phrases are equivilant).

    P2) The type of slavery mentioned in P1 is immoral. This Premise has two sub-premises.

    P2a) P1 slavery is bad according to our "Secular Moral Code."

    P2b) "Our Secular Moral Code" is superior to the Biblical moral code.

    C1) Therefore the Bible is incorrect about what is good.

    Is this a fair review of the implicit argument in the OP? Given that we agreed to it around post 32, I think it can serve as a good basis for further discussion.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #129
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are absolutely right, I copied the wrong link. I've corrected it now.
    I don’t see anything there which resembles an actual definition in the traditional sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You argue that what you mean by slavery is "owning a person as property.”
    No, I have presented the common definition of slavery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery): Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a form of property. For the sake of simplicity, this is presented by the OP as "owning people as property".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You've objected to the term chattel, but agreed with its definition.
    No, I object to theists’ attempts to explain away slavery in the bible using tactics such as trying to re-define the slavery practiced at different times being worse, or at least different than the Happy-Friendly-Nice-SlaveryPlus™ in the bible. We’re talking about slavery as defined as “owning people as property”.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think there is a problem with not clarifying that concept because you are applying it in a manner prone to cause equivocation fallacies.
    Slavery has been clearly defined by the OP since the very beginning, with resource definitions to back it up. Claiming the definition as clearly provided is prone to cause equivocation is unacceptable. You know what we’re talking about: owning people as property. It’s time to stop this nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The argument isn't mine to posit.
    I haven’t asked you to posit an argument. It’s a simple question asking you to answer honestly about a moral position you hold, since you and I are having a discussion about moral positions. Your continued white-knuckled avoidance of it - even to the point of threatening to "end the thread" - truly speaks volumes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If you don't want to offer a supporting premise, we can end the thread now with the clear point that you failed to offer a coherent argument.
    Sigh, we’ve been through this before with Hyde. Let's say there's no reason to think that owning people as property is immoral according to the OP. So now it's is not immoral. Do you agree with that conclusion?



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Perhaps a better way to approach this disconnect is for us to review the thread for the most recent agreed formulation of the OP.
    No, the OP will remain as-is with only the update to #1, and the definition of slavery remaining as "owning people as property" according to the strictest sense of the word. If anyone has an issue with some implicit question about whether owning people as property is immoral, they need only ask themselves if they think it is. Previously with Hyde, I stated that I was in favour of modifying the conclusion to be that the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by anyone who holds that owning people as property is immoral. So it's up to whether a person thinks owning people as property is immoral. If they do, we can have a discussion about what that implies with regard to the bible sanctioning it. If they don't, there's absolutely no point in them participating in the discussion.

  10. #130
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I don’t see anything there which resembles an actual definition in the traditional sense.
    How interesting. Perhaps the definition of chattel directly helps? Or any of these?

    Sociology dictionary:
    (noun) Slavery in which one individual owns another individual.
    http://sociologydictionary.org/chattel-slavery/

    Or

    A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...hattel+slavery

    Chattel slavery is the owning of human beings as personal property...The owner of a chattel slave not only controls the slave's labor, but owns the laborer as well.
    P.182. https://books.google.com/books?id=N70GiNB8aQ4C


    Chattel slavery is the type of slavery where human beings are considered to be property and are bought and sold as such. It is the kind of slavery that existed before the Civil War in the United States.
    https://www.reference.com/history/ch...9d71beba2ca56#

    Chattel slaves are property and can be traded as such. They have no rights, are expected to perform labor (and sexual favors) at the command of a slave master. This is the form of slavery which was carried out in the Americas as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
    https://www.thoughtco.com/types-of-s...n-africa-44542

    A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold.
    http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_40.html

    The second meaning of chattel can excite considerable emotion, as it refers to humans as property
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chattel


    Quote Originally Posted by Futureboy
    No, the OP will remain as-is with only the update to #1, and the definition of slavery remaining as "owning people as property" according to the strictest sense of the word.
    That's a shame. Without an additional premise you haven't presented an argument in the OP. All you've offered is a single premise and an unsupported conclusion. Without the valid reasoning as to why that conclusion should be accepted, that is an unsupported claim, and not open to be claimed further without support.



    I'm assuming that since sections of my argument as laid out weren't included, that you are reserving some parts for later argument? I only ask because there were some integral challenged left unanswered and I wanted to know if I should view those claims as held for later or withdrawn?


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    'm sorry, Squatch, but this just doesn't pass muster. Even if we granted that the bible contained specific instructions (it doesn't) for which Talmudic or other non-biblical Abrahamic texts shoud be referred to in order to fully understand what the bible itself says about slavery, the fact is that most Christians consider the bible and only the bible to be their moral guide.
    Further, even granting those specific references which don't exist, the issue still remains that the bible clearly sanctions slavery and clearly allows slave-owners to beat their slaves. No amount of study changes that.
    There are two issues with this as a response. 1) It doesn't address the evidence that I offered, you simply gloss over it and reject it, rather than offering a coherent response or rebuttal. Simply saying "it doesn't say that" to specific verses and references isn't a rebuttal. 2) You've offered no evidence that most Christians hold only the Bible as reference material. Many Christians go, in fact, to Church and listen to a pastor, many read or listen to Bible studies, all of which are outside sources of interpretation. Until you offer some kind of objective evidence for this position, it cannot be claimed here.

    If you wish to maintain it please offer support or retract it.

    In order to respond more effectively, do you have any evidence that the verses or references I offered were wrong?

    Just to highlight how much I offered compared to a "it doesn't say that" response:

    [I]f we are arguing about what the Bible says, we are already internally instructed to consult others and learned opinions. This is why we’ve seen both Jews and Christians do this almost constantly throughout history from the very beginning of the Church in Judea and Greece. We have commentaries dating to the first century AD, why there are clarifying synods about once a decade for 200 years after Christ’s death. Why St. Augustine wrote several voluminous commentaries and elaborations. And why we have literally hundreds of books and sites with Biblical study tools or compilations of the most influential.

    Future brought up that the OP was about how Christians read the Bible (though that wasn’t actually in the OP). Well, they generally do it with commentaries because we believe the Bible instructs us to “listen to advice and accept discipline, and at the end you will be counted among the wise.” (Proverbs 19:20). Both Christians and Jews are instructed that “though it cost all you have, get understanding.” (Proverbs 4:7) or to “buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.”

    This is specifically about our understanding of God and His will and we are warned, “the way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”
    a) We have examples of exactly this in both the Old and New Testaments. For example, when Paul argues with Greek philosophers in the agora in Acts 17, he specifically references their arguments and quotes their founders. He cites both epicurean and stoic philosophers in his response on what the Gospel says.


    b) In both this story and in 1 Corinthians, Paul answers the question, “how do we know if this wisdom is of God?” (The fact that they ask the question tells you that it was widely accepted in the early Church that we should review sources other than just the scriptures themselves). His answer, is to “judge by the fruits,” which is an evidence based argument. One that Christ makes as well (parable of the vine), as does Moses (calling forth water and mana). Paul is specifically appealing to outside evidence to make his point and to determine what is holy.


    c) When Paul is challenged on his authority to preach, he notes that he has proved his authority and understanding with practical application, not solely by scriptural references. (2 Corinthians 12).


    d) It has been asked why we don’t simply read these at face value. Because we are warned about giving the scriptures short shrift in Joshua. God instructs the Israelites to study the word deeply, to really delve into its meaning so that they can both retain it, and fully explore what it means. “This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.” Joshua 1:8

    Or as the psalmist says, “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.” Psalm 119:18, which is clearly in invocation for deeper understanding than a simple plain text reading would offer.


    e) To understand our obligations to God given to us in scriptures, we must rely on others to check our own understandings. Humans are inherently intellectually dishonest and that is why we are commanded to come together and check each others' understanding. (Hebrews 10). Moses is corrected for attempting to understand the word of God on his own in Exodus 18. King Rehoboam was lauded for seeking out the advice of others to better understand his duty to God in 1 Kings 12.


    f) God even requires us to come and reason with Him (Isaiah 1:18) rather than simply adopting a simplistic understanding of His instructions. On multiple occasions we are told that understanding comes from external evidence as well as scripture. God gives Moses signs so that Moses will understand God’s will (most of God’s information that Moses receives in Egypt is via evidence, not revelation). Jesus uses parables and miracles for exactly that purpose. He commands the crippled to walk so that they would know the Son of Man. He doesn’t invoke scripture alone (though He does invoke it), but augments that scripture with outside interpretation and evidence. Peter does the same, specifically referencing his acts and the evidence people saw around them as warrant for belief, and does them “so that you may know.” That is a very particular phrase calling back to Jesus, Moses in the wilderness, and God to Pharoah. The tradition of augmenting or clarifying the scriptural revelation through external evidence is deep in both the Old and New Testaments. https://winteryknight.com/2009/03/20...-and-evidence/


    g) We are specifically instructed to grow in our level of understanding and depth of exploration of the text. We can't do that, obviously, by just reading the text at a face value level, even children do that, but must engage in the text at more complex understandings like hermeneutics and literary analysis. We must grow in reason and to use logic at more adult levels as we grow. 1 Corinthians 13:11 “When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.”


    h) Paul often points out that fully functional faith is always based on knowledge. Deficient faith is the byproduct of deficient knowledge. He often asks the question, “Don’t you know…?” And asks it in the context often of non-scriptual references. (Rom. 6:3, 16; 11:2; 1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Cor. 5:6; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 1 Cor. 9:13, 27). James does the same in James 4:4. Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch: ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ (Acts 8:30).3


    i) We are commanded to have a reason and an argument for why we believe, not just a list of verses. The context of 1 Peter 3:15 indicates that Peter isn't just preaching verses, but using outside works, including other Jewish works and Greek philosophy.


    j) Romans 1&2 provides an oft quoted defense of using outside evidence to understand scripture. God’s works are manifest in the world so that “none should have an excuse.” We can discover God’s existence and more importantly His will and Law and apply that to our understanding of scripture. From Romans 2: “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” It was literally this argument that started much of the scientific revolution in Europe (Stark, “The Victory of Reason” or Schaeffer “How Should We Then Live?” or Morris, “Men of Science, Men of God”).


    k) Jude’s letter offers an illustration of this when he tells his congregation to use the words he is writing to them to help them better understand scriptures and orthodox theology. Jude 1:3 “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.”


    l) Paul does the same when he says that they can use what he has told them (not just the Gospel) to understand the gospel and explain it to men. 2 Timothy 2:2 “What you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.”


    m) In the Gospels proper, Christ tells us that our understanding explicitly comes from the Holy Spirit (rather than just reading the verses at face value) and better, the Holy Spirit when in a
    group of believers Matthew 18:20) to understand scripture and how we apply it (Luke 12:12).


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Please indicate where the bible says that it's irresponsible to take only the bible as one's moral guide.
    This is a strawman. I didn't claim the Bible says that it is irresponsible. Please see my argument again:

    We wouldn’t prohibit the use of a physics text book if we were debating gravity here, so there is little reason to limit the use of Christian and Jewish texts in understanding the Scriptures. Moreover, these texts were available to, and used by, Christians for the last several centuries. The abolitionist tract I posted earlier is a great example of a similar argument, as is Augustine’s Confessions a millennia earlier. The tract references both outside evidence and the Talmud. If those Christians had access too, and referenced outside sources, why wouldn’t we in understanding their position?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Unfortunately, it's not the case that we're both making claims with equal level of support. I'm citing verbatim the instructions the bible provides with regard to slavery (buying and selling them, and how they are to be treated).
    That isn't quite the case though. You aren't just quoting the text and leaving it a that. You are inferring what is meant by the text. It doesn't say 'you own the human being' you infer that from your understanding of slavery. Just as with the disagreement from above, it isn't sufficient for us to simply assert two different readings of a defintion at each other. We need to consult outside experts and sources.

    We both used the dictionary and agreed to listen to professors of English above, why wouldn't we consult outside sources over this disagreement?


    Again, this all comes down to, why are we limiting our understanding of the text and its context? What good comes from intentionally placing blinders on?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I already explained in detail in post #31 how Lev.25:46 specifically refers to people using multiple different terms for people such as child, resident, and family. You did not respond to that, choosing only to focus on the easily-misinterpreted 'abad issue in Lev. 25:46.
    That doesn't mean my point of it being borderline linkwarz is incorrect. If I simply linked an earlier post here it would still be insufficient. An actual argument must be made in the post itself. More importantly, I did respond in post 32. You'll note that in the post I highlight that you are referencing a root word and ignoring the sentence construct. Ben is a good example of that. It can mean "son" and it can mean "descendent of" or "a group of descendents" or "tribal relation" or "associated with." Strong's Concordance is a great reference, but it can't be taken blindly. Word roots and word definitions must be taken in context, you can't simply say that the root word is the definition and context of the sentence. Take the transliteration mishpachah you offer. It can mean family. It can also mean nation, or guild, or aristocrat.

    But that only highlights the smallest part of the broader context because mishpachah isn't actually used in Lev 25.45. See:

    מִשְׁפָּחָה


    Lev 25:45ם מִבְּנֵי הַתֹּושָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם אֲשֶׁר עִמָּכֶם אֲשֶׁר הֹולִידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה ׃


    The actual word used is: וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם

    Which is a far more robust meaning than just "families." It means more broadly, [object noun] (acquisition in this case) will come out of their group or tribe or families as a larger set. Which, returning all the way back to the point of that disagreement means that (and it seems obvious since it is written this way): "You shall get the things you aquire from what comes out of the familes and what they have produced on your land shall be your possession."

    [Side note: remember how we said that this entire concept was limited just to Israel, see the latter half of this verse for why. The Israelites only have claim to what is produced "on their land" not outside of it.]

    We can take an English word to clarify the point a bit. If I were to say: "I am the Captain from the US Army" and we were to look at a Strong's annotation you might notice that the root link would be to Capit meaning head. If you were to transliterate that (as you have) it would read "I am the Head" which could cause a lot of confusion. Rather, we have to look at the whole word, not just the root, and apply it in context to discover the meaning is a military rank, not the head of the Army.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    You need to stop this "you think" language. It's not that I think it says that, I've repeatedly cited what it says, and have made no indication regarding what I think what it says.
    It is a relevant clarification though. It is your interpretation of the meaning. It is an interpretation a majority of scholars don't share with you, as I've shown. It is a reading that doesn't comport with the understanding of the primary reference materials on the application of these verses. It is an interpretation that is at odds with the understanding of those who actually read Biblical Hebrew for a living as I've linked.

    So it is, in its very essence, your thinking on the meaning. I understand you might find that demeaning, I don't mean to personally demean you of course, but I need to highlight that you are maintaining an understanding of the verse that is at odd with every mainstream scholar presented in this thread and virtually every commentary that addresses the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    I really don't get where you've pulled out this mass of scholars, but simply looking at the readily-available commentaries, it's clear that most people think that when the bible refers to people by using words meaning people, the bible is referring to people.
    So...you don't have outside support? Simply linking to a commentary without an argument isn't defense of your position. Notice the more than 25 independent sources I offered in the that response and the accompanying explanations of how those sources supported my position.

    Again, absent an outside reference and explanation of how it supports your point, this is just a bare assertion fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Given the overwhelming consensus (translations and commentaries all referring to people as property), there really is no reason to further consider your claim that labour is owned and not the people.
    Interesting conclusion. You'll note that none of your references actually say that slaves are owned as people right? You seem to have fully tilted at a strawman here. You've defended that the slave is a person, not that a slave is labor. Sure, no argument there. In fact, no one is arguing that the word "slave" means labor, which is what you are defending here. What has been argued, and supported earlier (and again here) is that the ownership is of the product not the producer, just like it is with the land. Of course people are being obtained as slaves. But this doesn't mean that the ownership is of person unless you are assuming chattel slavery, which is both unsupported, and as shown not a concept in Biblical history.

    Your second reference is actually a perfect illustration of not considering the ideas in context. The servants are to be inherited like "immovable goods, as fields, vineyards" etc. But remember we already pointed out both in the Talmud and the Old Testament that the Jews don't own the fields or the vineyards, just the output of the fields and the vineyards.

    Lev 25:23: “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers."

    You'll also remember that way back in post 32 I noted that the Talmud (specifically Gittin) references this verse as support for the idea that slaves were not directly owned by the master just as the land was not directly owned, but that God had given over the produce of the land and the produce of the people to them, not direct ownership.

    Also in Leviticus 25, when God is explaining the repayment of loans during Jubilee:
    15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

    The point here is that you don't own the land, what you are buying is the crops.

    Or as a Biblical historian pointed out:

    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).
    https://wallbuilders.com/bible-slave...icas-founders/

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    The difference is irrelevant to the fact that the bible does allow for permanent ownership.
    This doesn't seem to be a rebuttal, just a claim. I would put forward that it fundamental to your argument for two reasons.

    1) It is relevant to your premise around secular moral codes. The last variant you offered argued that a secular moral code in modern America disagreed about slavery. The problem is that the modern secular moral code in America is about chattel slavery. If the Bible isn't referring to chattel slavery as I've supported, than this premise is rejected. Take an example:

    C1: Everyone likes apples.
    Counter 1: Steve doesn't like Apples.

    We seem to have a conflict. Until:

    P3: When Steve says Apple he is referring to the laptop, the argument is referring to the fruit.

    That is what is happening here, two separate terms are being conflated because the OP isn't bothering to distinguish what is meant in the relevant contexts.

    2) Slavery in the chattel system is inherent to the person, to the race. It is part of their identity, inescapable. That is very different in a moral context from it being the tasks you do. Saying, "no that isn't human it is a slave" is a very different moral statement than "that human being works for another human being."

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Again, Lev. 25:1-7 (The Sabbath Year) makes no mention of income, but simply mentions how left-over gleanings are intended as food.
    Which in an agrarian economy is income, right? Sufficed to say, you seem to agree that they own the fruit of that harvest right? And that slaves own what they glean? If not, can you defend that position with scripture? It would seem to be relatively clear that the verse is saying "these crops are for you to own

    As I quoted earlier, note that just a little bit later in the chapter God specifically points out that when pricing a land purchase what you are buying is not the land, but the future crops, so you should only pay what those crops are worth since you cannot own the land. The clear statement is that you own the crops. What you gather is yours. What slaves glean is theirs, that's why taking it from them is a sin and a crime.

    You are still in the odd position of maintaining both that they were allowed the right to collect gleanings for themselves, and that they somehow didn’t actually own those gleanings.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    So I don't know, but "he shall not be punished (for killing his slave)" seems pretty clear that the slave-owner isn't punished for killing his slave. Not being punished for doing something is a core principle of what it means to be allowed to do something.
    Of course, but then that isn't what the verse says. The verse doesn't say he won't be punished for killing his slave. It says he will be punished for killing his slave.

    He won't be punished if the slave dies for other reasons. Again, you didn't quote the rest of the explanation:
    Lacking a requirement to punish is not the same thing as mandating no punishment. A sentencing guide saying “mitigating circumstances can allow for a less than life sentence in murder cases” doesn’t mean that no one gets a life sentence.

    It simply says that punishment isn't automatic if the slave dies after a few days because it isn't presumed to be the master's fault. That whole innocent until proven guilty idea comes in. As I talked to Belthazor about, the death was still an issue for investigation and punishment if fault is found. The difference here is that there was a hearing at the synagogue rather than just a summary punishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Again, no, this is irrelevant to the OP, which is about slavery defined simply as "owning people as property",
    This is again a bit confusing given that the definition of chattel slavery is "owning the person as property." If the distinction I've drawn is valid (and there are a lot of commentators who would agree on this point), then to compare it to a secular system criticizing chattel slavery is invalid, thus the OP would fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    I'm just wondering, do you think it's okay for a slave-owner to beat their slave?
    I think we've covered this before. They were allowed to beat them for wickedness, not just randomly right? If it is only for wickedness, I would ask you why would you support a person not being punished for theft from another slave, or raping the other slave, or hurting another slave?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    No, it's pointing out that the passage you provided (Ecclus. 33:25–33) makes no mention of manumission, as you claimed in post #32 with: "The workload of a slave should never exceed his physical strength, violation of this rule can lead to manumission".
    Except that it does mention that explicitly in verse 33, unless you have a different interpretation of that verse than every scholar presented thus far and one that would, frankly strain credibility, since it would have to interpret "leaving slavery" as meaning "not being free."

    And to the central point, which you seemed to ignore. If this institution was life long chattel slavery, as you've claimed, why does the passage discuss the slave seeking liberty? And why does it imply that that is a realisitic option?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    In any case, the point is that the slaves are treated like property.
    That is quite a leap. When is 'property' judged to have acted wickedly or had intent? Human beings have intent. Human beings can act wickedly, toasters cannot.

    The point of noting that they should be treated "as a brother" and only punished for "wicked actions" is a clear affirmation of their humanity, in contradiction to a status as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Again, why would it be odd for a slave owned as property to want freedom and seek it?
    For the same reason it would seem odd for a legal guide to point out that you want to travel back in time. We don't generally provide provisos or warnings against that which is impossible. In the chattel system which you are invoking, there is no option for freedom. The slave can become fugitive, but that isn't what this text is referring to, rather it is invoking the status of free, which shouldn't be possible in a system where slaves are property rather than people.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Your statements about the slave seeking freedom seem to imply that you think the bible's system of slavery had some miraculous get-out-of-slavery loop-hole, whereby if the slave-owner didn't ensure his slaves weren't idle, the slaves could then apply for a special "freedom-seeking" protocol and they'd be magically manumitted.
    If by "magical" you mean noted by the vast, vast majority of Biblical and Hebrew scholars, yes. It was the escape clause that I've no supported in four different posts with nearly a dozen different sources. If a slave escapes his master, he is free. Not in an esoteric sense like you wish to limit it to, but in a legal sense. If a slave escapes, he cannot be returned to his master.

    That is a concept completely alien to the type of slavery you are suggesting is at play here. We literally had dozens of court cases and constitutional crises about this very concept in the US. In fact, it was the move from an indentured servitude type of slavery to chattel slavery in Virginia in the 1600s that provoked northern colonies to rule out that kind of system within their own charters.

    When Virginia changed its definition from a form of limited in time, work relationship to a "this race of people aren't human beings and are only property" we saw the rise of the abolitionist movement in the Colonies and in Britain based on the principle that this was unbiblical as pretty conclusively shown earlier.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    The simple fact that the slave is the owner's property, and if his property runs away, he has every right to go and get it.
    Except that isn't what this text, nor the Talmud, nor any major scholar thinks the Bible is saying. If you are going to argue that Biblical scholars hold this position, you'll need to offer support from Biblical scholars. As much as I have no beef with Wayne D. Turner, he isn't a scholar, he has an MS.

    Additionally, you'll need to explain Deut 23:15, which is set specifically in the context of taking slaves in conflict:

    If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.

    As Dr. Rushdoony, noted Biblical scholar wrote:
    Thus, the only kind of slavery permitted is voluntary slavery, as Deuteronomy 23:15,16 makes very clear...A runaway slave thus cannot be restored to his master: he is free to go. The exception is the thief or criminal who is working out his restitution. The Code of Hammurabi decreed death for men who harbored a runaway slave; the Biblical law provided for the freedom of the slave...and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein.
    https://wallbuilders.com/bible-slave...icas-founders/

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    No, it doesn't. I've repeatedly many times again now in multiple posts yet again confirmed for you that the OP defines slavery simply as "owning people as property".
    Which we can discuss, but that is literally what chattel slavery means. Chattel slavery is the type of slavery where you own a person as property. It would be like saying, "No I'm not talking about water, I'm talking about H2O." One is literally the definition of the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    This is simply a repetition of your earlier claim, not support. You need to explain why these verses imply the person is owned rather than some other factor.

    This support is related to the concept that a slave is a human being, which contradicts your argument that they aren't, that they are, rather, property. Your counter seems to be that the term slave refers to the individual, not the labor, but that is a no duh, and not the argument you made. When I say someone is a salesman, I don't mean that the term salesman refers to the job, it refers to the person doing the job. And that doesn't mean that the person is the job either. That latter point is what you need to support.

    Each of these points can be as easily rebutted here as they were earlier:
    You've defended that the slave is a person, not that a slave is labor. Sure, no argument there. In fact, no one is arguing that the word "slave" means labor, which is what you are defending here. What has been argued, and supported earlier (and again here) is that the ownership is of the product not the producer, just like it is with the land. Of course people are being obtained as slaves. But this doesn't mean that the ownership is of person unless you are assuming chattel slavery, which is both unsupported, and as shown not a concept in Biblical history.

    Your second reference is actually a perfect illustration of not considering the ideas in context. The servants are to be inherited like "immovable goods, as fields, vineyards" etc. But remember we already pointed out both in the Talmud and the Old Testament that the Jews don't own the fields or the vineyards, just the output of the fields and the vineyards.

    Lev 25:23: “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers."

    You'll also remember that way back in post 32 I noted that the Talmud (specifically Gittin) references this verse as support for the idea that slaves were not directly owned by the master just as the land was not directly owned, but that God had given over the produce of the land and the produce of the people to them, not direct ownership.

    Also in Leviticus 25, when God is explaining the repayment of loans during Jubilee:
    15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

    The point here is that you don't own the land, what you are buying is the crops.

    Or as a Biblical historian pointed out:

    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).
    https://wallbuilders.com/bible-slave...icas-founders/

    Additionally, since you added the imprudent "any way" modifier to your claim, you need to explain why; a) the Bible contains discussion of a repatriation price (a concept fundamentally at odds with chattel slavery/owning a human being rather than their services) and b) why that price is tied to the amount of labor they can do, not their status as a human being.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    No, the people come from the specified groups indicated from which slaves can be obtained. It's quite simple, really, and the commentaries I've provided support this very simple interpretation.
    Except, as pointed out (twice) that isn't what the commentaries say. They say that word slave refers to people not work, sure, but not that the people are owned as property. That interpretation requires us to ignore the totality of Hebrew social structures, the entire Exodus story, several specific verses listed above noting that the Israelites don't own factors of production, just the production, and the consensus of dozens of scholars linked in four different posts.

    Alternatively, it doesn't make sense in the actual text itself as I pointed out. Just because a verb and noun are in the same sentence does not mean that the noun is the object of the verb. "Steve owns Mike's cat" doesn't mean that Steve owns Mike, we have to consider the sentence construct, the subject, the object, and the conjugation of the verb. You gloss over that despite the provided evidence.

    Here ‘achuzzah is at the end of the sentence. And it isn’t literally ‘achuzzah as you seem to note. Rather, it is: לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה, which is a conjunction word of אֲחֻזָּֽה (‘achuzzah) and לַֽ (to). Used after the word immediately preceding (לָכֶם ) “your” this is “to your possession.” So what is added to their possessions? I think this is where you rush to conclusions.

    If it were the people themselves that were added to the possessions, it would be sufficient to say, “the sojourners can be added to your possessions” or some version of that. We would see towshab by itself, without modifier. But we don’t.

    We see it modified to say “of the sojourners” or “from the sojourners.” That is a very different construct. So we get something that comes from those people rather than the people themselves.

    Unless you can show why the Hebrew authors would have added all that additional wording to their sentences or show that the Hebrew subject/object/noun chain supports your conclusion, you are just making an unsupported assertion.

    What's more you ignore that this specific Hebrew construct is used elsewher in the Old Testament and clearly, unambiguously refers to buying a product from someone, not buying the person. Notice the parallel structures in Lev 25:14 and Neh 10:31 where we are buying something from someone.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    No, again, "the sons" is referenced as the group/category from which slaves are to be obtained. See the commentaries.
    None of that addresses the vocabulary or literary structure being discussed however. You are insisting on an English point that no one is claiming as a rebuttal for a discussion on Hebrew sentence and word construction.

    Again, return to the point I just issued where I already addressed those exact commentaries (as above or in my last post). Do you have a commentary that says that people, themselves are owned? If this was such an obvious concept, you would think that you could find a single commentary somewhere by a respected academic that says it unambiguously. I've offered several that reject your hypothesis after all. Can't you offer one, single unambiguous support?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Ellicott's Commentary: "(45) And they shall be your possession. These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property. (46) And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children. That is, they may appropriate them to themselves, as their personal property, which is transmissible as inheritance to posterity with the family land."
    On what planet does such commentary not clearly indicate that people are property?
    Apparently in Ellicott's world. You selectively quote the work (and without a link). From the full text: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ell...viticus/25.htm

    They remain in perpetual serfdom unless they or their friends redeem them, or their master has maimed any one of them. In case of injury the master is obliged to manumit him (Exodus 21:26-27). The authorities during the second Temple enacted that the master’s right, even with regard to this kind of bondmen, is restricted to their labour, but that he has no right to barter with them, to misuse them, or to put them to shame.
    Notice the term serfdom, which is a form of "slavery" but as Ellicott understood, not chattel slavery. Notice that the authority of the master is restricted to their labor, not to the individual as a human being.

    Notice also in the sentence before:
    They shall be your bondmen for ever.—These are not subject to the laws of jubile. They remain in perpetual serfdom unless they or their friends redeem them, or their master has maimed any one of them. In case of injury the master is obliged to manumit him
    Ibid
    That he uses the term bondman, not chattel slave (a term he clearly understands). The Earl of Pembroke is Bondman to the Queen of England, we'd hardly call that chattel slavery. Also note that he highlights some of the conditions that lead to manumission. This both contradicts your earlier assertions that no such conditions exist and differentiates it from ownership of the person as chattel, in which manumission is not possible.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. Thanks JAGG thanked for this post
  12. #131
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    The claim that Lev. 25:45 refers to nations as property and not people is ridiculous, if only for the simple reason that nations are made up of people, lo and behold the very same kinds of people specifically referred to in Lev. 25:45 (children, families). Further, I reject the "property-possession" argument. Being able to beat someone is a core principle of what it means for them to be your property.
    Corporations are made up of people too, but my ownership of a corporation does not mean I own its people, right? Entities can have personhood aside from the individuals constituting them.

    Your "rejection" is irrelevant. That is a matter of opinion, not a serious rebuttal.

    Corporal punishment does not imply chattel ownership either. The state can corporally punish you, it doesn't mean you are the state's property. The army can corporally punish you, it doesn't mean the army owns you as property.

    Ironically you are making the same argument that Southern Slave holding farmers made against educated ministers and professors. It really isn't any more convincing now than it was then.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Looking at that section, the main argument is that "Servants were not subjected to the uses nor liable to the contingencies of property". Unfortunately, being bought, sold, passed down as inheritance, and beaten are all core principles of what it meant to be property.
    Bare assertion fallacy. You've offered no support or reasoning that those are core concepts associated with and only associated with being owned as property.

    Nor does it even pass a cursory examination (which is why the agrarian defenders of slavery didn't even resort to such a weak concept).

    I can whip a tree and not own a tree. I can own my dog and not be allowed to whip it (which is illegal).

    I cannot buy an automatic firearm (I lack a class three license), but there is no doubt that that firearm is, indeed, property. Nor am I allowed to sell land to a foreign agent, but there is no doubt that that land is my property.

    Please provide support for your assertion or retract it please.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Sure, the wife is also considered to be property. That's why all the things listed in Ex. 20:17 are indicated as "any thing that belongs to your neighbour".
    It is fun to just make things up, but you have no evidence that Hebrews saw marriage in that light (and there is a lot of evidence in Genesis that they saw it quite differently). Please support or retract that the ancient Israelites viewed marriage as a property contract. Challenge to support a claim.

    Since this claim is the defense of your rebuttal, failure to support it also concedes the point made in the supported link that inclusions in lists does not support the property idea any more than the idea that children are property and not children.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    This is simply inaccurate. The verse first says that someone bought and had slaves. Then adds that they had more cattle than anyone else in Jerusalem.
    Hmm, you seem to have missed the author's point. The author is noting that when slaves are included in lists, there are specific appeals to their humanity that differs from non-humans in the list. That is the case here (perhaps you legitimately didn't see it, but the omission is telling).

    There were male and female slaves. And slaves were born (the specific term here in Hebrew refers to being added to a household or clan, something only a person, not a sheep or a cart can do, you'll notice ben is never used referring to a non human: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H1121&t=NIV).

    But when referring to the animals, there is no distinction of what they were, no list of individual animal types, let alone any kind of distinction of their nature or the relationship to the family.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Bazaz literally means to save someone from destruction and take them with you?
    Yes. It literally has the context (as shown in the link) of preserving something and taking it with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    No, again, the commandment is to take them as plunder, not to "not murder them".
    This is not a rebuttal, it is just you emoting. Do you have a non-emotional response to the evidence presented? Or is your position seriously that they were supposed to take away the people in order to murder them? If that is the case, why were they taken away? Why then spend pages outlining how you needed to care for them, to feed them, the educate them, to prevent permanent harm, to free them if necessary, and why list out a dozen or more ways that would allow them to become free citizens?

    You are arguing against a cartoon parody of the actual work rather than engaging the text in a wholistic context and consulting the understanding of legitimate scholars. This is relatively clear in the manner of your response which here tended to the personal and emotive rather than the objective and descriptive. "what you are doing is disgusting" not "the sentence structure or word meaning has this contemprory context..." If you cannot approach the subject calmly it might be an indicator that you are falling victim to a host of cognitivie biases like framing bias, the Semmelweis reflex, the Dunning-Kruger effect, or choice-supportive bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    The point is that it's the people being referred to as gifts from god, not labour.
    Again, this rebuttal lacks any evidence or logic as to why you think it is the case. As I pointed out earlier, that isn't what the verses mean either in appropriate context or even in a plain text reading. You don't consume the people, you consume what they produce. I don't consume the land, I consume the fruits of the land. Conflating the two concepts is intellectually lazy.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    I don't have to assume anything - I've supported why they are different.
    I'm not actually sure you even read this part of the response given your answer. Again, this is simply intellectually dishonest. It also isn't clear from your response that you know what a begging the question fallacy is, or you would see that you both did it there, and again here in your response. For review:

    Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.
    http://grammarist.com/rhetoric/beggi...stion-fallacy/

    There is a relatively consistent historical tradition related to Christianity detailed in previous posts. Simply ignoring that like the proverbial ostrich doesn't really achieve very much in the discussion. Rather than accept the argument of Aquinas, or the scholars of Yale, Harvard, and Oxford, you've chosen to accept the readings of self-interested southern plantation owners. Readings rejected by even their own ministers, the Southern Baptist Convention. Interpretations at odds with virtually every scholar for more than 25 centuries. That is a heck of a cherry pick.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    The fact that the bible could be and was used in order to justify slavery for so long only serves to demonstrate the OPs conclusion.
    So one verse, taken out of context by a sub set of uneducated farmers is enough, in your mind, to overturn the consensus of scholars for 25 centuries consulting the entire text, including those that ended the chattel slavery system in the south?

    By your reasoning, we are fools to think the Reptilians aren't in charge, after all 8% of Americans think so, right? That is a much, much higher percentage than the one you are relying on.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Again, I was simply confirming that nothing in the bible states that a court was obligated to review cases where slaves were beaten to death, which was your claim.
    Again, you (presumabely willfully) misunderstand the response. These are discussed in the sections of the Talmud I already cited to you.

    Presumption of damage done to a slave is that the master did it unless the master was away, KID 20a

    Specifically discusses this verse and the presumption of guilt standards based on different scenarios. KID 24a

    GIT 12A and B discuss the obligations of a master in various scenarios, including if he has hurt or killed a slave.

    Each of these sections has voluminous Biblical support and references. The Talmud is not just some stand alone document, it is a coherent understanding of Biblical law and precedent. The authors were strict in their citation and reference requirements. Simply ignoring that is intellectually dishonest and doesn't bode well for approaching the subject in good faith.




    Here are the portions of my response that went unaddressed, but which are still critical to your OP (assuming you are still arguing that you have put forward a coherent op rather than a non sequitur).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    So any number of people coming together and dealing with morality outside of a religious system constitutes our shared moral system? So when NAMBLA came together and discussed and concluded that sexual activity between adults and children was a moral goal, that would be part of our secular moral system under your definition, right?

    If not, why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    It is relevant because it goes to our access to knowing what is part of that moral system. If we are going to evaluate this moral system both from what it supposedly contains and its alleged moral superiority, we need to know where to find its values.

    Your premise would seem to be that any effort or action outside of a religious context constitutes the workings of a secular moral system, is that correct?

    Your last clause is also interesting. How do we “objectively identify” the goals of this moral system? How were they objectively identified? This seems contradictory to your first response where you indicate that it is the actions of people coming together, clearly different groups of these people could have contradictory goals, and more importantly, a group of people coming together to set a goal is, by definition, subjective, not objective.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Well giving your definition above, there are many goals that secular groups have come together to discuss and advocate for that aren’t contained in the law. If one of the definitions you offered was them coming together to change the law (amongst other things), then we have to acknowledge that the law can be out of step with our current secular moral code, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Yes, sadly there are a lot of anti-Semitic groups that have a desire to shut down Nizkor (a site that defends that the Holocaust was, in fact, historical).

    Your analogy isn’t quite correct either. If someone were arguing that the goal of hockey is to get the puck in the net as evidenced by the fact that a lot of hockey players try to do that, then that would be an appeal to popularity fallacy. If, rather, they said the goal of hockey is to get the puck in the net as evidenced by the fact that hockey players try to get the puck in the net, that would be an appeal to their expertise, which isn’t a fallacy (since they do have an expertise in the game).

    I think if we look at the actual definition for an appeal to popularity, you’ll see why your original point that we know action x is wrong because “contemporary people in many places have worked to establish organizations and laws against it” is an appeal to popularity fallacy:


    The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
    1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
    2. Therefore X is true.
    The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
    It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
    This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persuasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
    This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.
    Link from last post

    I’d add also the text for the appeal to common practice fallacy too since you seem to be almost exactly referencing that flavor of fallacy in your argument:



    Description of Appeal to Common Practice
    The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
    1. X is a common action.
    2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
    The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

    There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:
    1. Most people do X.
    2. Therefore X is morally correct.
    would not be a fallacy. This would however entail some odd results. For example, imagine that there are only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one's view simply by eliminating those who disagree.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Ok, if true, how do we know the proposition, “Action X violates the goals of our secular moral system” to be true?

    How can I know that, say adults having sex with children, violates our secular moral system if there are groups advocating against it and groups advocating for it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    This is a bare assertion fallacy. Do you have evidence of these claims? The only surveys I’m aware of are the ones that indicate people are less denominational. Atheistic belief seems to be steady or declining the last time I checked. Regardless, their belief structure is a different claim than the one you are arguing.
    Do you have evidence that the secular moral system is “greatly more” subscribed to now? If not, you would need to retract that claim. Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    This doesn’t support the claim. You need to offer support that whatever the moral code/system is, it is based on objective observations. Please support or retract that claim. Challenge to support a claim.


    I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but the status of the code as objective or subjective is critical to your argument. If the code is, in fact, subjective, your argument for its superiority is fallacious and the structure of your OP falls apart.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I get that you are making that claim, but I asked you to support how you know that fact. Can you offer support that that claim is, indeed, a fact? Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    You are still confusing whether people accept an objective, factual claim as true with whether it is an objective, factual claim or not.

    Is this statement a factual claim? “The sun revolves around the earth.”

    Yes, of course it is. It can be wrong, but it is still an objective, factual claim.

    Further you are committing a bit of an argument from ignorance fallacy here. Because an objective moral code hasn’t been proven to be true (a claim you haven’t supported) doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Well that is a bit different. Individual elements within the system being objective aren’t really relevant. What is relevant, and necessary, to your argument is that the output of that system is objective. IE when your system says “murder is wrong” is it making that statement as a “it is wrong for everyone, for all time, regardless of individual opinions” or as a “we have determined that it is goes against our values?”

    Which statement is closer to how the system you imagine works?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    My last statement was that you just stated that the laws do not comport to the moral code. They both do not contain the entirety of the moral obligations nor only contain elements from the moral system.

    I determined those as the criteria for “real insight” because I am using the basic rules for comparing two groups.

    For example. Would I say “I understand Literature because I’ve read the collected works of Shakespeare?” Of course not, Shakespeare isn’t anything like the whole body of literature. Shakespeare also contains elements of poetry rather than literature.

    In order to understand what my reading of Shakespeare contributes to my understanding of literature, I need to understand a lot more about what the body of literature is, and which parts of Shakespeare contribute to it.

    Likewise here, if we are going to say that the laws are some kind of evidence of the existence of a moral pronouncement, we need to understand what part of your moral system is reflected in the laws and what part isn’t. Likewise, what part of the law come from places other than your moral system, etc.

    You need to offer a lot more detail if you are going to support, as you claim, that it violates “our” secular moral code.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I get that you claim that it does, but given the broad array of possible goals being set by that system, do you have any support that this is an uncontested goal? IE are there no groups coming together outside of a religious context that disagree with that goal?

    And interestingly, are you saying that your moral code only applies to those who choose to adopt it? If so, you would agree that it is a definitionally subjective system then, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    How can it be used to make objective assessments? Can you give an example of an objective assessment?
    For example, a group of people coming together, outside a religious context, to declare that X is wrong, isn’t an objective assessment. You could argue that X goes against their moral decision is objective, sure, but that isn’t an objective assessment about morality, it is an objective assessment about their subjective position on morality.
    Jan doesn’t like strawberry ice cream is an objective statement too, but it doesn’t mean Jan’s distaste for strawberry ice cream is objective.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Then you are stating that your system is subjective by definition. If the moral assessments generated by the system are defined as dependent on who the people in that system are, it is definitionally subjective, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Actually eugenics was a moral system. Its fundamental tenant was that people who don’t produce enough don’t deserve to live. That is a moral pronouncement. The belief that a society should exterminate unproductive people to make itself better is absolutely a moral system. Eugenics held, at its core, the assertion that it was wrong to let “undesirables” procreate. That is indisputably a moral claim.

    I’m saying that we can’t take the superiority of any given moral system for granted. Your argument makes that assertion with no support. What reason or argument or support do you have to say that this moral system is better than any other?

    Eugenics made some objective moral claims as well. “People who make less than a living wage are parasites and don’t deserve to live.” I would imagine that you would argue your system is morally superior to that system. Fair enough, but why? What defense do you have to make that comparison. It can’t be simply that there are (possibly) some objective facts used in there somewhere, Eugenics had that as well. So what is it? What reason do you have to claim this secular system is superior?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    You don’t seem to offer any evidence or reasoning to support this argument.

    Your statement was:


    This would make sense if you could provide a single reference where 'abad was used in Hebrew to mean "labour" as a noun.

    I offered 15.

    Given that I offered 15 times the required evidence level you requested, we can agree that my initial argument now “makes sense” according to your standard right?

    You asked for the use of the word as a noun, and I offered it. Is that sufficient or are we going to shift the goal posts a bit?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I’m assuming you were replying to sections as you read them and wrote this before consulting the end of my response.


    I think the point missed initially that gave you the trouble was that you saw the link for the “Root Form” of the word without explanation of what that meant. Root words in Hebrew (as in English) can become verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc. depending on what other prefixes and suffixes we add to them.


    In the text we were looking at, Strong’s was pointing out the root of the word was ‘abad, not that the word, in its entirety was ‘abad.

    In the verse under discussion, specific word used was,

    תַּעֲבֹדוּ

    This word has the possessive, plural form of: abodeh. Abodeh is the root abad with a definitive article in front of it. Definitive articles in front of verbs both in English and Hebrew make them nouns. The business, the hunt, the service, etc.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H5656&t=KJV

    You can see that with a variety of prefixes and suffixes that ‘abad fills in as verb, noun, and adjective.
    http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strong...n&isindex=5647


    IE the same noun you point out here is in the verse you reference. It becomes increasingly difficult to hold the distinction point you are offering given your statements that it “would make sense if had been used as a verb” and “that noun is abodeh,” etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I think you might need to reread my response. I didn’t indicate that you claimed the most logical translation was that they owned a verb. Rather, you attempted to dismiss the evidence offered by saying “you can’t possess a verb” in post 31.

    That objection seems to fall by the wayside given both the evidence on Hebrew sentence structure offered and the clarification on the root vs word offered in the last post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Again, this is simply rehashing an earlier claim without additional evidence does little to move the debate forward.

    You made this claim in post 31 absent any evidence to support it. (So at the very least please support or retract that claim, Challenge to support a claim.)

    Further, you argument was rebutted in post 32. Specifically, rebutted with evidence.


    Returning to the text at hand, the verb's proper definition fits my explanation more closely than yours. In fact, your take would seem to indicate that the Bible is incorrectly asserting ownership of a verb (which you believe to be incorrect). Rather, it is noting that the service (labor) done for others is a possession through inheritance. If the verse was, as you state, referring back to the object of the last verse (something btw not done in biblical Hebrew, nor English until the 1200s) then the word 'achuzzah would not be present. That is a clarifying word in this context nothing that the following word, 'abad is a possession. It makes no sense, and rather should have been the pronoun 'el-leh. The lack of th at pronoun clearly indicates that no such "call back" was being offered. Rather, the possession in question is the word in position three, 'abad, which fits the more appropriate Hebrew grammar structure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    That is a bit of a stretch of that reading. Especially given the other translations of the text as:


    31 If thou have a servant, entreat him as a brother: for thou hast need of him, as of thine own soul: if thou entreat him evil, and he run from thee, which way wilt thou go to seek him?
    [Septuagint Bible w/Aprocrypha]


    31If you have a servant, treat him as yourself; For as your own soul will you have need of him: If you treat him ill, and he depart and run away, Which way will you go to seek him?
    [World English Bible]

    The more accurate translation, given the Greek and Latin http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/sir033.htm, is that it is saying if you have even a single slave. There is nothing in either the Greek or Latin that limits the principle to a single slave. Rather, it uses the singular version of the noun for servant or slave, which in Greek also meant the indeterminate case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns). IE, if they were to ask how many rats (we use the plural case) are in a closed box, they would literally say, “how many rat are in the box?”

    We can also see this in that none of the commentaries on Sirach reference any kind of limitation in the sense you seem to read it. https://www.studylight.org/commentar...sirach-33.html
    By your reasoning the entire Old Testament is applying to just the case where you have a single slave because the Hebrew is using the singular case of the noun as well.

    Do you have any structural evidence or scholarly commentary that supports your argument?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    There are three relevant points here.
    1) The original claim was made by you in the OP: “To address slavery in the bible from a moral perspective, it is defined here as: "owning a person as property".”
    Thus it was the initial claim, there are literally no other posts before it. So… Please support or retract that the verse actually refers to the person, rather than you read it as referring to the person. Challenge to support a claim.


    2) In post 23 I use the term “rather than labor” as an example of another criteria of something that could be owned, not as a separate claim.

    3) That Hebrews were only allowed to own the fruits of the land and of property was already supported in post 32 (specifically in the discussion in Kiddushin) and post 39 (discussion about non-movables).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. Thanks JAGG thanked for this post
  14. #132
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...hattel+slavery
    This is yet again the definition of "slavery", as your search of "chattel slavery" redirects to "slavery". This definition comports with the OP's definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Chattel slavery is the owning of human beings as personal property...The owner of a chattel slave not only controls the slave's labor, but owns the laborer as well.
    P.182. https://books.google.com/books?id=N70GiNB8aQ4C[
    The sentence between the two you cited reads: "It is the most extreme form of unfree labor and is commonly known simply as slavery."
    So yet again the definition of slavery as per the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Chattel slaves are property and can be traded as such. They have no rights, are expected to perform labor (and sexual favors) at the command of a slave master. This is the form of slavery which was carried out in the Americas as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
    https://www.thoughtco.com/types-of-s...n-africa-44542
    From the same source: "The United Nations deems slavery to be "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised", so yet again the definition of slavery in the OP is supported. Further, this source lists debt bondage and serfdom as types of slavery. Do you think these types of slavery are moral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold.
    http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_40.html
    The very first sentence from this source: "Slavery refers to a condition in which individuals are owned by others, who control where they live and at what they work." Again the OPs definition is supported, go figure.

    Can we finally stop this chattel nonsense? The OP clearly defines the term, and that definition is supported by sources which even you have provided in your efforts to shift the discussion onto whether what the bible depicts is slavery or something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There are two issues with this as a response. 1) It doesn't address the evidence that I offered, you simply gloss over it and reject it, rather than offering a coherent response or rebuttal. 2) You've offered no evidence that most Christians hold only the Bible as reference material.
    I'm sorry, but sola scriptura and prima scriptura are core doctrines of nearly all Protestants, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc. Bottom line, the bible doesn't have specific instructions for which Talmudic or other non-biblical Abrahamic texts should be referred to in order to fully understand what the bible itself says about slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I didn't claim the Bible says that it is irresponsible.
    Then it's simply your opinion that it would be irresponsible to take only the bible as one's moral guide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn't quite the case though. You aren't just quoting the text and leaving it a that. You are inferring what is meant by the text.
    Let's try this again. I'm going to just quote the text and leave it at that: Lev. 25:45 - "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession." (KJV)
    Nothing is inferred here. The text literally refers to people using words like children and family, and says they are possessions. Do you think it's moral to have people as possessions?
    So again, I'm not making a claim about what the text means, but citing verbatim what instructions it provides.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, this all comes down to, why are we limiting our understanding of the text and its context? What good comes from intentionally placing blinders on?
    Is the bible not the divinely-inspired and perfect moral guide of a supreme being?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It can mean "son" and it can mean "descendent of" or "a group of descendents" or "tribal relation" or "associated with."
    Those are all still people, dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which is a far more robust meaning than just "families." It means more broadly, [object noun] (acquisition in this case) will come out of their group or tribe or families as a larger set. Which, returning all the way back to the point of that disagreement means that (and it seems obvious since it is written this way): "You shall get the things you aquire from what comes out of the familes and what they have produced on your land shall be your possession."
    Yes, and that which is acquired is people, as clearly indicated in the text. Let's take a look at another translation: "You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (NIV) Do you think it's moral to buy people as property?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The Israelites only have claim to what is produced "on their land" not outside of it.
    Let's look again: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." (NIV)

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If you were to transliterate that (as you have) it would read "I am the Head" which could cause a lot of confusion.
    I haven't transliterated anything. Again, I'm just citing the text verbatim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is a relevant clarification though. It is your interpretation of the meaning.
    Let's try this again: "As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have; of the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves." (WEB)

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is an interpretation a majority of scholars don't share with you, as I've shown.
    Dude, for the last time, we're talking about what's clearly written in the bible - it's not an interpretation. Show me a single widely-published actual bible which is available to us regular folks that says what you claim the scholars are saying (clearly and without ambiguity that owning slaves means owning labour, not people), and maybe it would have more weight. As it stands, nearly every single version of the bible currently available has specific instructions for how to buy and sell people and that they are property. All you're saying boils down to nothing more than the ridiculous claim that all available versions of the bible are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is an interpretation that is at odds with the understanding of those who actually read Biblical Hebrew for a living as I've linked.
    And yet all the translations which came from "those who actually read Biblical Hebrew for a living" clearly refer to people as possessions. Let's look at another one: "You may also buy from resident aliens who live among you and their families who are with you, whom they fathered in your land. They may become your property." (ISV)

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Of course people are being obtained as slaves.
    As supported by sources which even you provided, a slave is someone who is owned. Do you think it's moral to own someone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But this doesn't mean that the ownership is of person unless you are assuming chattel slavery
    No assumption of any type of slavery is required. The text clearly states that people are bought and sold, and that people are property. We don't even have to use the words slavery, slave, servant, bondman, serf, whatever. The text plainly and simply refers to people that are bought, sold, and inherited as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your second reference is actually a perfect illustration of not considering the ideas in context. The servants are to be inherited like "immovable goods, as fields, vineyards" etc.
    Yes, property/possessions are inherited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But remember we already pointed out both in the Talmud and the Old Testament that the Jews don't own the fields or the vineyards, just the output of the fields and the vineyards.
    This is no way changes the fact that Lev. 25:45 refers to people as property/possessions. Also, please note that the very next verse Lev. 25:24 refers to the land as people's possession. So at the very most all we have in Lev. 25:23 is a nebulous concept of the impermanence of humans' stay on this world and the necessarily impermanent ownership of immovable property like land. Bottom line: being inherited means it's property which is owned, at least in the simplest sense that property rights over it can be transferred by sale or will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).
    LOL, when you have the first part of a sentence confirming that slaves (people) are acquired, but the second part says it's their labour that's purchased, all you've done is make an internally contradictory sentence. Regardless, the bible clearly indicates that people are acquired (bought and sold as property), not their labour. A simple test is to see if the people were free to not produce any labour or if they were forced to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This doesn't seem to be a rebuttal, just a claim. I would put forward that it fundamental to your argument for two reasons.
    Again, I'm simply pointing out that the fact that owners could choose to manumit slaves is irrelevant to the fact that the bible sanctions permanent ownership of slaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which in an agrarian economy is income, right?
    Trying to say that Lev. 25:6-7 is intended as ensuring income for slaves has got to be one of the funniest things I've read in a while. So since the food is also intended for the livestock and wild animals mentioned in the same sentence as the slaves, that means the "agrarian economy" recognized animals as earning income? Wow, quite the forward-thinking moral guide, I must say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It says he will be punished for killing his slave.
    And then it say's he won't be punished if the slave who dies under his hand only dies after a couple days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    He won't be punished if the slave dies for other reasons.
    No, the text clearly refers to the slave which dies under the owner's hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is again a bit confusing given that the definition of chattel slavery is "owning the person as property." If the distinction I've drawn is valid (and there are a lot of commentators who would agree on this point), then to compare it to a secular system criticizing chattel slavery is invalid, thus the OP would fail.
    Just stop the chattel nonsense, it's not working.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think we've covered this before. They were allowed to beat them for wickedness, not just randomly right?
    Really? Where does it say that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If it is only for wickedness, I would ask you why would you support a person not being punished for theft from another slave, or raping the other slave, or hurting another slave?
    Reasonable and humane punishment is fine, but it sounds as thought you're in support of physical beatings as a form of punishment. Are you in favour of physically beating someone in order to punish them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except that it does mention that explicitly in verse 33, unless you have a different interpretation of that verse than every scholar presented thus far and one that would, frankly strain credibility, since it would have to interpret "leaving slavery" as meaning "not being free."
    Again, your claim was that giving excessive work leads to manumission. The text does not say this. It says, in two separate statements, that you shouldn't give excessive work, and then at the end it says that if you ill-treat your slave and he runs away, you'll have a hard time finding him. Trying to say that this is a clause for manumission is simply ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If this institution was life long chattel slavery, as you've claimed, why does the passage discuss the slave seeking liberty? And why does it imply that that is a realisitic option?
    Again, why do you think it's odd that a slave subject to permanent ownership would seek liberty? The passage indicates that sometimes slaves don't want to be slaves anymore and try to find a way to not be slaves anymore, and they're more likely to do that if they're not beset with disciplined labour, as explained in Ecclus. 33. It's really quite logical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    When is 'property' judged to have acted wickedly or had intent?
    When the property in question is a slave. Duh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The point of noting that they should be treated "as a brother" and only punished for "wicked actions" is a clear affirmation of their humanity, in contradiction to a status as property.
    So, you believe using racks and tortures and making fetters heavy affirms the humanity of someone? Nice. I'm thankful we've moved past such barbarism. Incidentally, Ecclesiasticus is not considered to be canon by Protestants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We don't generally provide provisos or warnings against that which is impossible. In the chattel system which you are invoking, there is no option for freedom.
    First, I'm not invoking any "chattel system", so stop that nonsense. We're talking about owning people as property. Second, the slavery practiced in America did allow for slaves to purchase their freedom, which the bible doesn't address.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    it is invoking the status of free
    Where does the bible say this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If a slave escapes his master, he is free. Not in an esoteric sense like you wish to limit it to, but in a legal sense. If a slave escapes, he cannot be returned to his master.
    Again, where does it say that the slave is free? All the anti-return states is that someone else can't return a slave to their master. Further, as already confirmed by (http://www.bibletrack.org/cgi-bin/bible.pl?mo=04&dy=13:) this concerns a slave who has escaped from his master in some foreign land and sought refuge in Israel, and not the regular slaves kept by Israelites: those taken as plunder in war, purchased from other nations, Hebrew temp./permanent male slaves, Hebrew permanent female slaves, children of any aforementioned slaves born into slavery, etc.
    The commentaries support this:
    "He shall dwell with thee in the place which he shall choose — This shows plainly that the passage is not to be understood of the servants of the Israelites their brethren, but of aliens and strangers"
    "The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land. It is of course assumed that the refugee was not flying from justice, but only from the tyranny of his lord." - The comment about the "refugee not flying from justice" is also interesting, because it precludes thieves sold into slavery (Ex. 22:3) from the anti-return clause.
    "evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people"
    "This is not to be understood universally, as if all servants that flee from their masters [...] might be detained from them by any person to whom they fled for refuge"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a concept completely alien to the type of slavery you are suggesting is at play here.
    And that's why it's also absent in the bible. The anti-return clause is nothing more than helping refugees from neighbouring nations to take refuge in Israel if they wanted to embrace the Israelites' "true" religion. There is no clause for any of the regular Israelites' slaves to simply run away and be magically free - the commentaries even explicitly mention this as something which was to be avoided.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As Dr. Rushdoony, noted Biblical scholar wrote
    And which commentaries don't agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    the Biblical law provided for the freedom of the slave...and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16)
    The biblical law does not provide freedom for all slaves universally with Deut. 23:15-16. It's only the foreign slaves which are helped.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is simply a repetition of your earlier claim, not support. You need to explain why these verses imply the person is owned rather than some other factor.
    Because that's what they say. Nothing is implied or claimed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This support is related to the concept that a slave is a human being, which contradicts your argument that they aren't, that they are, rather, property.
    I never made an argument that the slaves aren't human beings. Slaves are human beings which are owned as property. The OP's definition is quite clear on this: "owning a person as property", so it's odd that you would miss this and make the straw-man that my argument is they're not human beings. Since the slave is what is bought and sold, passed on as inheritance, beaten, forced to work, etc., the slave is what is owned. The slave is a person who is owned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And that doesn't mean that the person is the job either. That latter point is what you need to support.
    When you hire a someone to do a job, you're hiring the person, not the job. Similarly, when you buy or sell a slave as property, you're dealing with a person as property. The two are inextricably linked, especially when you're speaking in quite simple terms of buying/selling actual people, and that actual people are inherited, beaten, tortured, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Lev 25:23: “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers."
    And Lev. 25:24 refers to the land as people's possession.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Also in Leviticus 25, when God is explaining the repayment of loans during Jubilee:
    15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.
    Commentary on Lev. 25:15:
    "The promised land, according to the Law, was to be divided by lot in equal parts among the Israelites. The plot which should thus come into the possession of each family is to be absolutely inalienable, and for ever continue to be the property of the descendants of the original possessor."
    "It was provided that the lands should not be sold away from their families. They could only be disposed of, as it were, by leases till the year of jubilee, and then returned to the owner or his heir."

    So the land is the property of the Israelites who own it and are able to lease it to others for the duration until the jubilee, when it returns to the original possessor as their property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except, as pointed out (twice) that isn't what the commentaries say. They say that word slave refers to people not work, sure, but not that the people are owned as property.
    Again, from the commentaries:
    "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property."
    "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted"
    "their power over their slaves should exist not only until their death, but should continue in perpetual succession to their children; for this is the force of the expression, 'ye shall possess them for your children,' that the right of ownership should pass to their heir’s also"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We see it modified to say “of the sojourners” or “from the sojourners.” That is a very different construct. So we get something that comes from those people rather than the people themselves.
    No, what is obtained is people from specific groups of people. The commentaries support this: "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property." It's specifying which people from which groups can be owned as property as slaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What's more you ignore that this specific Hebrew construct is used elsewher in the Old Testament and clearly, unambiguously refers to buying a product from someone, not buying the person.
    That wasn't ignored. It's a ridiculous point which is clearly addressed by the fact that the verse doesn't indicate that the product of people is bought, but that people of specific groups are bought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Do you have a commentary that says that people, themselves are owned?
    "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property."
    "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted"
    "and they shall be your possession"
    "their power over their slaves should exist not only until their death, but should continue in perpetual succession to their children; for this is the force of the expression, 'ye shall possess them for your children,' that the right of ownership should pass to their heir’s also"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Notice the term serfdom, which is a form of "slavery" but as Ellicott understood, not chattel slavery.
    In the commentary for Lev. 24:44-46, Ellicott uses the words "slave", "bondmen", "servant", and "serfdom". So what? The commentary clearly indicates that the people are the property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Notice that the authority of the master is restricted to their labor, not to the individual as a human being.
    Again, the human being is the personal property of the slave-owner. The human being is transmissible as inheritance property. The phrase about the authority being restricted to their labour doesn't change that, and is most likely to do with the laws regarding how masters are to treat their slaves. They're still bought, sold, and inherited as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That he uses the term bondman, not chattel slave (a term he clearly understands).
    That's a verbatim cite, not him using the term. Again, Ellicott uses many words associated with slavery, servitude, bondage, etc, but the commentary still indicates that the people are the property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This both contradicts your earlier assertions that no such conditions exist
    No, I asserted that your claim with Ecclus. 33 is not a condition for manumission.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    differentiates it from ownership of the person as chattel, in which manumission is not possible.
    Please support this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Corporations are made up of people too, but my ownership of a corporation does not mean I own its people, right? Entities can have personhood aside from the individuals constituting them.
    The point is that the author is trying to make Lev. 25:46 sound as though people are not being inherited as property, but nations are. Again, this is ridiculous and not supported by a plain-text reading or the commentaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The state can corporally punish you, it doesn't mean you are the state's property.
    Which states allow corporal punishment? Do you think it's moral to physically harm someone as punishment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The army can corporally punish you, it doesn't mean the army owns you as property.
    Which US military code states that corporal punishment is allowed? I believe UCMJ Article 93 specifically bars such conduct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ironically you are making the same argument that Southern Slave holding farmers made against educated ministers and professors. It really isn't any more convincing now than it was then.
    And yet, the fact that they were even able to make it proves that the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Bare assertion fallacy. You've offered no support or reasoning that those are core concepts associated with and only associated with being owned as property.
    I never said they need to be only associated with it - they don't. This is a straw-man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Nor does it even pass a cursory examination (which is why the agrarian defenders of slavery didn't even resort to such a weak concept).
    That's because they didn't need to. The bible simply told them that the slaves are their property. Duh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I can whip a tree and not own a tree.
    If you go to someone else's property and start whipping or breaking branches off their trees to use as firewood or building materials, you'll quickly find out that you don't own the tree. If you do it to your own trees on your own property, you won't have any issues, since you own the tree. Again, being able to harm something is a clear indicator that you own it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I can own my dog and not be allowed to whip it (which is illegal).
    Disciplinary punishment of your pet, within reason, is perfectly acceptable. But if you do it to someone else's dog without their permission, you'll be in big trouble, since you don't own it. Again, being able to harm something is a clear indicator that you own it.

    Your examples, while amusing, completely miss the point, which is that being able to harm your property is a clear indicator that you own it. Further, being bought, sold, and passed down as inheritance are also covered, which your ridiculous responses don't even (fail to) address.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is fun to just make things up, but you have no evidence that Hebrews saw marriage in that light (and there is a lot of evidence in Genesis that they saw it quite differently).
    Ex. 20:17 groups wives in together with other articles of property.
    Wives are purchased by men paying money to the father, who does not have to consider his daughter's wishes in order to sell her to the man.
    A man who rapes an unmarried woman has to pay her father for her. This is a property crime against the father of the virgin that was defiled, since the father would not be able to sell her to a man after she is no longer a virgin.
    A married man committing adultery with another man's wife results in the death of the adulterers, but if a married man has sex with a prostitute, this is not punished as with adultery since no property crime is committed.
    The only exception to the principle of women being the property of their husbands is found in the loophole by which Hebrew temp. slaves could be owned for ever. In this case, the only reason the the wife would not go out with the Hebrew slave is because she is already considered the property of the slave-owner who gave her to the Hebrew.
    Wives are instructed to submit to their husbands.
    Extensive use of “baal” instead of "ishi" to refer to a husband being the lord and owner of his wife.
    Fathers can sell their children as property.
    Detailed explanation is available here (a Xtian page): https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015...uman-property/
    Husbands' ownership over their wives and children should obviously not be an issue for any Xtians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Hmm, you seem to have missed the author's point. The author is noting that when slaves are included in lists, there are specific appeals to their humanity that differs from non-humans in the list.
    As I already explained, the difference of the property grouping in Eccl. 2:7 is due to the difference in the statement being made about each - the slaves being mentioned simply as property he had, but the cattle being mentioned explicitly because of the quantity he had compared to others. Again, the separation of slaves from cattle in Eccl. 2:7 is not because slaves are not property whereas cattle are property, but because the statements themselves are separate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    something only a person, not a sheep or a cart can do, you'll notice ben is never used referring to a non human:
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H1121&t=NIV)
    From that very same page:
    "Outline of Biblical Usage:
    E. young (of animals)
    H. of lifeless things"

    Further, the section of definitions includes the following non-humans: bough, branch, breed, (young) bullock, (young) calf, colt, foal, kid, lamb

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes. It literally has the context (as shown in the link) of preserving something and taking it with you.
    bâzaz, baw-zaz'; a primitive root; to plunder:—catch, gather, (take) for a prey, rob(-ber), spoil, take (away, spoil), utterly.
    So again, on what planet does that mean "don't kill them, save them from destruction".
    Also, what destruction are they being saved from? Oh, right, the destruction that the Israelites themselves would do to them as commanded by god. Way to save people from destruction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Or is your position seriously that they were supposed to take away the people in order to murder them? If that is the case, why were they taken away?
    To be kept as slaves, duh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why then spend pages outlining how you needed to care for them, to feed them, the educate them, to prevent permanent harm, to free them if necessary, and why list out a dozen or more ways that would allow them to become free citizens?
    So, the Israelites murdered all their men and destroyed their families so that they could care for them and be super-duper nice in all the ways you describe? Wow, I really didn't know that. I guess this book really is a good moral guide after all!

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are arguing against a cartoon parody of the actual work rather than engaging the text in a wholistic context and consulting the understanding of legitimate scholars.
    Chuck Smith's commentary: "go in, kill all the men and leave all the women and children alive and then you can use the women and children as servants" (no altruistic aid intentions there)
    David Guzik: "You shall plunder for yourself: Plunder provided the wages for the army in ancient warfare, and underwrote the expenses for the battle" (again, no altruistic intentions, but plunder as income)
    Matthew Henry: "the spoil they are allowed to take to themselves, in which were reckoned the women and children. Note, A justifiable property is acquired in that which is won in lawful war" (again, no altruistic responsibility for providing aid to the conflict-stricken, but justifiable property)

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is relatively clear in the manner of your response which here tended to the personal and emotive rather than the objective and descriptive. "what you are doing is disgusting" not "the sentence structure or word meaning has this contemprory context..." If you cannot approach the subject calmly it might be an indicator that you are falling victim to a host of cognitivie biases like framing bias, the Semmelweis reflex, the Dunning-Kruger effect, or choice-supportive bias.
    I'm perfectly calm, dude, and only pointing out that taking the provision in Going to War for keeping women and children alive so they can be plundered and attempting to frame it as some altruistic aid mission simply fails miserably both from a logical and, just as importantly, a moral perspective when you look at the verses immediately before and after Deut. 20:14, where all the men are to be murdered, and in other cases, absolutely everyone is to be murdered. Way to spread God's love, dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, this rebuttal lacks any evidence or logic as to why you think it is the case.
    Again, "the spoil they are allowed to take to themselves, in which were reckoned the women and children. Note, A justifiable property is acquired in that which is won in lawful war". The people are the property. A plain text reading supports this as well as the commentaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not actually sure you even read this part of the response given your answer. Again, this is simply intellectually dishonest.
    I asked you on what basis do you accept the super-ultra-moral and lengthy anti-slavery interpretations over what the text says? You replied that I assumed they were different. Again, I haven't assumed anything, I've supported why they are different. Plain text readings and commentaries support the conclusion that the bible explicitly sanctions owning people as property by providing clear instructions for how people are to be bought, sold, inherited as possessions, beaten, physically punished and tortured, laden with chains, etc. These are all plain text readings with simple commentaries to back them up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Simply ignoring that like the proverbial ostrich doesn't really achieve very much in the discussion.
    I'm not ignoring it - I've explained why it doesn't carry weight over the plain text readings and commentaries supporting #1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather than accept the argument of Aquinas, or the scholars of Yale, Harvard, and Oxford, you've chosen to accept the readings of self-interested southern plantation owners.
    Another straw-man. I'm not accepting the readings of self-interested slave-owners. It's plain-text readings supported by biblical scholar commentary, dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Interpretations at odds with virtually every scholar for more than 25 centuries.
    Another straw-man. They're not interpretations. I've provided contemporary commentaries showing that the plain-text readings (again, not interpretations) are valid in support of #1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So one verse, taken out of context by a sub set of uneducated farmers is enough, in your mind, to overturn the consensus of scholars for 25 centuries consulting the entire text, including those that ended the chattel slavery system in the south?
    Another straw-man, boy are you on a roll, or what?! It's not just one verse, and it's not taken out of context. Again, the very fact that the bible was used for so long to support owning people as property based on plain-text readings, and that the abolitionists had to jump through pages and pages of clumsy word manipulation just to be able to convince the rest of Xtianity that they shouldn't do slavery anymore, goes to prove that the bible isn't some divinely-inspired and moral guide from a supreme being, and cannot be seriously considered as such.

    And you really need to stop this holier-than-thou abolitionist rhetoric. While anybody would grant that Xtian abolitioninsts played a role in the movement, let's not forget who instituted slavery in America in the first place. Let's not forget the Dum Diversas, and other papal bulls, which explicitly gave Catholic rulers theological justification and the right to enslave non-Christians, spreading God's love throughout the New World and the countries from which they stole their slaves. If you're so hell-bent on giving Xtians the credit for abolishing slavery in America using the bible, then the blame also rests with them and the bible for instituting it in the first place.

    Not only Xtians were abolitionists. Free-thinkers played a role, as well, notable examples being Abner Kneeland and William Lloyd Garrison. When the churches of Boston turned Garrison away because of his abolitionist views, it was Kneeland who gave him a venue to speak. Garrison later stated: "It was left for a society of avowed infidels to save the city from the shame of sealing all its doors against the slave’s advocate."

    You see, Squatch, it's not as if Xtianity itself was behind the abolitionist movement, or that Xtianity was what ended slavery in America. It was a small number of people, Xtians and freethinkers both, who worked hard to convince the rest of the Xtianity to get behind the religious reforms. And even then most did so reluctantly, because their financial interests were to do so. So Xtianity got reluctantly dragged into abolishing slavery as the modern world shifted to more inclusiveness of people being treated humanely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Simply ignoring that is intellectually dishonest and doesn't bode well for approaching the subject in good faith.
    I'm not simply ignoring it - I've explained for you why it's irrelevant to the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Here are the portions of my response that went unaddressed, but which are still critical to your OP (assuming you are still arguing that you have put forward a coherent op rather than a non sequitur).
    I'm done playing games with you, Squatch. You've failed to re-direct the discussion onto the red-herring of whether what the bible sanctions is slavery as defined as owning people as property. You've failed to provide clear, plain-text support that, when a slave is bought/sold/inherited as property, it's the labour which is the property and not the person, as I've repeatedly supported with plain-text readings and commentaries. And you've repeatedly demonstrated incredible dishonesty with regard to the simple question of whether you think it's moral to own another person as property, even to the point of threatening to end the thread just so you wouldn't have to answer it. As I already stated: If anyone has an issue with some implicit question about whether owning people as property is immoral, they need only ask themselves if they think it is. I even added the option of the alternative conclusion, which both you and Hyde have ignored - a fact that is quite telling indeed. If you can't be honest about that, well, then you can go ahead and "end the thread", since there's obviously no chance of getting you to speak honestly about the immorality of owning people as property. Thanks for playing.

  15. #133
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    More importantly, given that we are making reference to others' understanding of moral law, the question you didn't answer seems relevant. If those Christians had access too, and referenced outside sources, why wouldn’t we in understanding their position?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I'm going to just quote the text and leave it at that...Nothing is inferred here.
    I think you are missing the basic nature of language. Text is simply a series of markings communicating language, the meaning of that language is something that is inferred, that is literally what language is. The markings themselves have no intent, they don't have a desire to communicate something. Language, as a fundamental concept is something that you infer.

    In order to argue that these scribblings have the message you are inferring (ie that you are reading from the text) you have to provide a bit of argumentation.

    The text does not literally say you 'you own the human being' in the sense that you mean it in the OP. Rather, you infer that from your reading of the text and the application of your context involving slavery.

    Just as with our disagreement earlier, it isn't sufficient for us to simply assert two different readings of a definition at each other. We need to consult outside experts and sources.

    We both used the dictionary and agreed to listen to professors of English above, why wouldn't we consult outside sources over this disagreement?


    Again, this all comes down to, why are we limiting our understanding of the text and its context? What good comes from intentionally placing blinders on?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Is the bible not the divinely-inspired and perfect moral guide of a supreme being?
    Absolutely, which is why we should follow its example;

    The Bible instructs us to “listen to advice and accept discipline, and at the end you will be counted among the wise.” (Proverbs 19:20). Both Christians and Jews are instructed that “though it cost all you have, get understanding.” (Proverbs 4:7) or to “buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.”

    This is specifically about our understanding of God and His will and we are warned, “the way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”

    a) We have examples of exactly this in both the Old and New Testaments. For example, when Paul argues with Greek philosophers in the agora in Acts 17, he specifically references their arguments and quotes their founders. He cites both epicurean and stoic philosophers in his response on what the Gospel says.


    b) In both this story and in 1 Corinthians, Paul answers the question, “how do we know if this wisdom is of God?” (The fact that they ask the question tells you that it was widely accepted in the early Church that we should review sources other than just the scriptures themselves). His answer, is to “judge by the fruits,” which is an evidence based argument. One that Christ makes as well (parable of the vine), as does Moses (calling forth water and mana). Paul is specifically appealing to outside evidence to make his point and to determine what is holy.


    c) When Paul is challenged on his authority to preach, he notes that he has proved his authority and understanding with practical application, not solely by scriptural references. (2 Corinthians 12).


    d) It has been asked why we don’t simply read these at face value. Because we are warned about giving the scriptures short shrift in Joshua. God instructs the Israelites to study the word deeply, to really delve into its meaning so that they can both retain it, and fully explore what it means. “This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.” Joshua 1:8

    Or as the psalmist says, “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.” Psalm 119:18, which is clearly in invocation for deeper understanding than a simple plain text reading would offer.


    e) To understand our obligations to God given to us in scriptures, we must rely on others to check our own understandings. Humans are inherently intellectually dishonest and that is why we are commanded to come together and check each others' understanding. (Hebrews 10). Moses is corrected for attempting to understand the word of God on his own in Exodus 18. King Rehoboam was lauded for seeking out the advice of others to better understand his duty to God in 1 Kings 12.


    f) God even requires us to come and reason with Him (Isaiah 1:18) rather than simply adopting a simplistic understanding of His instructions. On multiple occasions we are told that understanding comes from external evidence as well as scripture. God gives Moses signs so that Moses will understand God’s will (most of God’s information that Moses receives in Egypt is via evidence, not revelation). Jesus uses parables and miracles for exactly that purpose. He commands the crippled to walk so that they would know the Son of Man. He doesn’t invoke scripture alone (though He does invoke it), but augments that scripture with outside interpretation and evidence. Peter does the same, specifically referencing his acts and the evidence people saw around them as warrant for belief, and does them “so that you may know.” That is a very particular phrase calling back to Jesus, Moses in the wilderness, and God to Pharoah. The tradition of augmenting or clarifying the scriptural revelation through external evidence is deep in both the Old and New Testaments. https://winteryknight.com/2009/03/20...-and-evidence/


    g) We are specifically instructed to grow in our level of understanding and depth of exploration of the text. We can't do that, obviously, by just reading the text at a face value level, even children do that, but must engage in the text at more complex understandings like hermeneutics and literary analysis. We must grow in reason and to use logic at more adult levels as we grow. 1 Corinthians 13:11 “When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.”


    h) Paul often points out that fully functional faith is always based on knowledge. Deficient faith is the byproduct of deficient knowledge. He often asks the question, “Don’t you know…?” And asks it in the context often of non-scriptual references. (Rom. 6:3, 16; 11:2; 1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Cor. 5:6; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 1 Cor. 9:13, 27). James does the same in James 4:4. Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch: ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ (Acts 8:30).3


    i) We are commanded to have a reason and an argument for why we believe, not just a list of verses. The context of 1 Peter 3:15 indicates that Peter isn't just preaching verses, but using outside works, including other Jewish works and Greek philosophy.


    j) Romans 1&2 provides an oft quoted defense of using outside evidence to understand scripture. God’s works are manifest in the world so that “none should have an excuse.” We can discover God’s existence and more importantly His will and Law and apply that to our understanding of scripture. From Romans 2: “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” It was literally this argument that started much of the scientific revolution in Europe (Stark, “The Victory of Reason” or Schaeffer “How Should We Then Live?” or Morris, “Men of Science, Men of God”).


    k) Jude’s letter offers an illustration of this when he tells his congregation to use the words he is writing to them to help them better understand scriptures and orthodox theology. Jude 1:3“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.”


    l) Paul does the same when he says that they can use what he has told them (not just the Gospel) to understand the gospel and explain it to men. 2 Timothy 2:2 “What you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.”


    m) In the Gospels proper, Christ tells us that our understanding explicitly comes from the Holy Spirit (rather than just reading the verses at face value) and better, the Holy Spirit when in a
    group of believers Matthew 18:20) to understand scripture and how we apply it (Luke 12:12).


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Yes, and that which is acquired is people, as clearly indicated in the text.
    This is simply a bare assertion fallacy. Again, if it is your contention that the text implies that specific relationship, you need to offer direct support. You need to explain why the sentence structure, or word meaning actually means what you think it does. I'm not being obstinate here, it is important because you are coming to a different conclusion than the vast, vast bulk of professional experts in this field.

    Importantly, you completely ignored the substance of my response. You ignore that the word you are referencing isn't actually in the text. You ignore that in this response, but that doesn't change the fact that word roots and word definitions must be taken in context, you can't simply say that the root word is the definition and context of the sentence. Take the transliteration mishpachah you offer. It can mean family. It can also mean nation, or guild, or aristocrat.

    But that only highlights the smallest part of the broader context because mishpachah isn't actually used in Lev 25.45. See:

    מִשְׁפָּחָה


    Lev 25:45ם מִבְּנֵי הַתֹּושָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם אֲשֶׁר עִמָּכֶם אֲשֶׁר הֹולִידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה ׃


    The actual word used is: וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם

    Which is a far more robust meaning than just "families." It means more broadly, [object noun] (acquisition in this case) will come out of their group or tribe or families as a larger set. Which, returning all the way back to the point of that disagreement means that (and it seems obvious since it is written this way): "You shall get the things you acquire from what comes out of the families and what they have produced on your land shall be your possession."

    [Side note: remember how we said that this entire concept was limited just to Israel, see the latter half of this verse for why. The Israelites only have claim to what is produced "on their land" not outside of it.]


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I haven't transliterated anything. Again, I'm just citing the text verbatim.
    That is what transliteration means. It means simply converting a text, letter for letter, rather than translating it via context. You simply read it without context or meaning rather than doing a deeper dive of what is meant and conveyed in the text. Hence why you are holding onto an interpretation that essentially only southern planters have held in the last 3000 years. Every other available serious source has come to a different conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Let's try this again:
    Your response doesn't address my point that you mistranslated the root word and that your inference disagrees with the majority of scholarship.

    It is a relevant clarification though. It is your interpretation of the meaning. It is an interpretation a majority of scholars don't share with you, as I've shown. It is a reading that doesn't comport with the understanding of the primary reference materials on the application of these verses. It is an interpretation that is at odds with the understanding of those who actually read Biblical Hebrew for a living as I've linked.

    So it is, in its very essence, your thinking on the meaning. I understand you might find that demeaning, I don't mean to personally demean you of course, but I need to highlight that you are maintaining an understanding of the verse that is at odd with every mainstream scholar presented in this thread and virtually every commentary that addresses the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    it's not an interpretation.
    Again, I think you are overlooking the fundamental nature of what language is. Any reading of any text is an interpretation. Language is an attempt at conveying meaning that relies on the receivers inference of the meaning from shared definitions. Language is, at best, an imperfect conveyance for meaning which is why people have misunderstandings all the time. Surely you recognize that and have had similar experiences in your life. Here we are having one of a similar nature. You are inferring a meaning that seems "obvious" to you. But a lot of professional scholars disagree with you. Given that, we need to address why future reads a different meaning than a)Israelites, b) professional rabbis, c) the cannon law of Israel and Judaism, d)Old Testament scholars, e) a detailed analysis of textual meaning and context, f) a coherent reading given other verses (such as you don't own the land, just its produce).

    It is an appeal to authority fallacy to rely on your own, untrained, opinion of that meaning and ignore experts in the field. It has been shown to you in several posts that the meaning, as understood by contemporaries and modern experts, is that the Jews did not have a concept of slavery in which the human being was owned. You've appealed to your personal understanding of a linguistic translation taken out of context. That isn't a weighty response to the bulk of evidence offered.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And yet all the translations which came from "those who actually read Biblical Hebrew for a living" clearly refer to people as possessions.
    Not exactly, future's reading of an isolated section out of context is inferred by future as meaning that.

    Let's take another example to highlight this point.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Who, exactly, is covered by this clause?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    As supported by sources which even you provided, a slave is someone who is owned.
    It is intellectually dishonest to claim that this is what I wrote, and frankly, rather lazy. What I actually wrote was:
    Interesting conclusion. You'll note that none of your references actually say that slaves are owned as people right? You seem to have fully tilted at a strawman here. You've defended that the slave is a person, not that a slave is labor. Sure, no argument there. In fact, no one is arguing that the word "slave" means labor, which is what you are defending here. What has been argued, and supported earlier (and again here) is that the ownership is of the product not the producer, just like it is with the land. Of course people are being obtained as slaves. But this doesn't mean that the ownership is of person unless you are assuming chattel slavery, which is both unsupported, and as shown not a concept in Biblical history.

    Your second reference is actually a perfect illustration of not considering the ideas in context. The servants are to be inherited like "immovable goods, as fields, vineyards" etc. But remember we already pointed out both in the Talmud and the Old Testament that the Jews don't own the fields or the vineyards, just the output of the fields and the vineyards.

    Lev 25:23: “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers."

    You'll also remember that way back in post 32 I noted that the Talmud (specifically Gittin) references this verse as support for the idea that slaves were not directly owned by the master just as the land was not directly owned, but that God had given over the produce of the land and the produce of the people to them, not direct ownership.

    Also in Leviticus 25, when God is explaining the repayment of loans during Jubilee:
    15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

    The point here is that you don't own the land, what you are buying is the crops.

    Or as a Biblical historian pointed out:


    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).
    https://wallbuilders.com/bible-slave...icas-founders/

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is no way changes the fact that Lev. 25:45 refers to people as property/possessions.
    I get that you claim that, but you haven't supported it except by a bare assertion fallacy. You need to support that the intent of the authors was to imply that message rather than just that you infer it. Importantly, you need to offer a rebuttal to the consensus opinion voiced in the post above:

    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).
    ibid.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    LOL, when you have the first part of a sentence confirming that slaves (people) are acquired
    So the author, a respected expert in Biblical literature is so dumb, that he contradicted himself, but future, a random internet debater is wiser? That doesn't seem a bit presumptious of you?

    So I guess the Federal Government sanctions slavery as well? "In order to avoid the appearance of discrimination, these employers must complete new Forms I-9 for all acquired employees, without regard to actual or perceived citizenship status or national origin." After all, we are "acquiring employees" that must mean in the simple text reading that the employee is owned by the new firm right? That meets your definition of slavery after all.
    https://www.uscis.gov/faq-page/e-ver...s#t16969n47165

    Or perhaps, just perhaps, there is a bit more to that given context? Perhaps we could read text with a tad bit more sophistication?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, I'm simply pointing out that the fact that owners could choose to manumit slaves is irrelevant to the fact that the bible sanctions permanent ownership of slaves.
    Except that isn't what the support said. While owners could well choose to manumit slaves (which is in contrast to slavery as you define it, if you own a person they are a slave forever, it is part of their nature), the support offered in several posts was that the slave owner was required to manumit slaves in a large set of circumstances. That does contradict your claim that the Bible sanctions permanent slavery. Rather the Bible sanctions a labor relationship (as supported elsewhere) that extends for a period of time until any of a large number of conditions is met:

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    [Obviously this is the case, he can’t be a slave for life if he has been manumitted.

    2) The owner has not injured the slave.

    • [Exodus 21:26,27, any owner that does permanent damage to their slave must set the slave free because of the damage. You’ll notice there is no requirement for intent here as in other places, this is noted by Talmud scholars as indication that even damage done as part of the work or in an accident counts.
    • From the Talmud, any injury that is permanent is included and requires manumission. (KID. 24a).
    • Similarly, and you won’t find this in other legal codes, including our own, if a man injures another man’s slave, he must pay the owner for the loss of the labor, the slave must be freed, and then the man must support the now freedman with charity. (GIT 12b).
    • Again, any permanent damage frees a slave. KID 24a.


    3) The slave has not become disabled.

    • Obviously, the same verse in Exodus applies here, since a disability is a permanent injury.
    • A slave is free if there is any grievous injury caused by the master, this includes in the process of doing service for the master (work place injury). (Kid. 24b–25a; Yad, Avadim 5:4–14; Sh. Ar., YD 267:27–39).
    • Same as above, any injury that has a permanent nature mandates manumission. (Kid. 24a).
    • Any permanent damage frees the slave. GIT 42b.
    • Any disability that makes the slave unfit for service, and this includes natural disability from disease or age, frees the slave. KID 25b.


    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).

    • In Leviticus 25, a slave is guaranteed his own property and earnings, and is able to redeem himself, or be redeemed by his family.
    • Payment of the slave’s price in money frees the slave even if the master does not wish to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • A slave can buy pack a portion of his freedom and then work during that portion of his time for his own benefit, to earn the rest of his freedom. IE if he buys back ‘half” of himself, he works every other day for himself. GIT 41b.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed. KID 6b.
    • Redemption through money earned or acquired mandates manumission. KID 8a.
    • Non-Jewish slaves only (those not freed by the Jubilee) are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will, the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free. KID 22b.



    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.

    • Deut 24 requires the payment of wages and allows slaves to collect left over crops (those not collected on the first pass, the “gleanings”) for their own use.
    • II Sam. 9:10; 16:4; 19:18, 30; cf. I Sam. 9:8 Slaves owning property and receiving wages.
    • Payment of the slave’s price frees the slave, regardless of master’s intention to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • Slaves could hold property of their own (Tosef. Ar. 1:2; Shek. 1:5; Pes. 8:2, 88b; Yev. 66a; TJ, Yev. 7:1; Tosef. BK 11:1; BB 51b–52a; Sanh. 91a, 105a; Ket. 28a; Meg. 16a; etc.),
    • Value of slave labor: Deut 15:18 implies, the work of household slave might be valued at twice the value of a hired man; regardless, Lev 25:40 specifies that the work of the household slave cannot be valued at less than that.
    • If the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given. GIT 12a.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Slaves can earn money through labor and gift. KID 11b.
    • Jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13, master has no ability to refuse this pay. KID 14b.
    • Rates at which slaves must be paid. KID 15a.
    • Slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitly, even against the master’s will. KID 23a.

    Refrences:

    GIT: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf

    KID: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf




    I’ll add to the above that there are a host of other conditions that require manumission, again, distinguishing this institution from chattel slavery.

    • A fugitive slave must not be turned over to his master. (Deut. 23:16).
    • Ben Sira adds: "If thou treat him ill and he proceeds to run away, in what way shalt thou find him?" IE mistreatment is the presumed reason for a slave escaping, thus his return to his master is forbidden. (Ecclus. 33:31).
    • The workload of a slave should never exceed his physical strength, violation of this rule can lead to manumission. (Ecclus. 33:28–29).
    • A verbal promise of release might not be sufficient, but a court will compel the master to issue a written release if a verbal promise was given. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:3 and Sh. Ar., YD 267:73–74).
    • A slave is to be released if the master bequeaths him property (Pe'ah 3:8; Git. 8b–9a; Yad, Avadim 7:9; YD 267:57).
    • A slave is freed automatically by marriage to a freewoman, or by his de facto recognition, in the presence of his master, as a free man such as reading the Torah in public. Git. 39b–40a; Yad, Avadim 8:17; YD 267:70)
    • Marriage to the master's daughter seems to have been a not infrequent means to emancipation (Pes. 113a).
    • A slave may not be sold to a non-Jew. Doing so automatically frees the slave and the master will have to pay a fine as high as ten times the slave’s sale rice (as well as being forced to redeem him from the buyer). (Git. 4:6; Git. 44a–45a; Yad, Avadim 8:1; YD 267:80).
    • A slave who has been jointly owned by two masters and is released by one becomes half-slave half-freeman; the remaining master may also be compelled by the court to release him (Git. 4:5; Yad, Avadim 7:7; YD 267:62–63).
    • The legal principle for decision was “almost every doubt in favor of freedom” and Masters were forced to manumit slaves ("Yad" 'Abadim, ix. 6).

    From the Talmud, listings of the some of the myriad of ways a slave could earn freedom. It also has some textual analysis that refutes your claim that a slave is owned as a person, rather than their labor is owned.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf

    • 8a: If a master attempts to sell his slave outside Israel and it’s protection, or event to travel outside Israel, the slave can request manumission.
    • 8b: if a man assigns property (of the non-movable type to his slave, the slave becomes ipso facto free.
    • 9a: if the slave is not specifically given to offspring, he is free. If the offspring has died or does not come to claim the slave the slave is freed.
    • 9a: promises of freedom are not retractable by the master.
    • 9b: if the slave is joint owned by husband and wife and there is a divorce, if either sets him free, he is free.
    • 12a: if the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given.
    • 20b: if a man and woman divorce and the slave runs to the woman (or man), that woman or man can free him, even if he is the ex’s property.
    • 21a: if the slave was the man’s property, but he gives the slave to his wife when they divorce, the slave cannot be transferred or willed, but is free when she dies.
    • 37b: if a slave is carried off by robbers and then ransomed to someone as a freeman, rather than explicitly sold back as a slave, he is free.
    • 38a: a slave who escapes from prison is a free man and the master can be compelled to create a writ of manumission.
    • 38a: if the master has given up hope of recovering the slave, the slave is freed regardless of how they are ransomed or released or escape.
    • 38b: if a slave woman marries a freeman, she is free. (Jews pass lineage through the female, and thus it was seen as unduly burdensome to create a perpetual slave line and prevented their ability to marry, which is seen as sacrosanct from God).
    • 38b: if a tenth man is needed to make a quorum at the synagogue, the slave is freed for the religious obligation. If the master likewise consecrates his slave, he is free. Similarly, if he declares him common property he is a free man.
    • 39b: a man who gives up hope on a slave from sickness or being lost, or being captured, frees the man.
    • 40a: if a slave marries a free woman in the presence of a master he is freed. Or if the master arranged the marriage.
    • 40a: if a master borrows money from a slave, the slave is freed.
    • 44a: if a man uses his slave as collateral to a heathen, and he defaults the man is free, if the slave escapes from the heathen he is free.
    • 44b: if a man sells his slave while abroad, he becomes free (this is one of the reasons the entire concept died out following the diaspora).

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf
    • 4a: slave has rights to end service
    • 6b: services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed.
    • 6b, Note 7: cannot be sold to non-Jew or into a case of worse service than they had.
    • 8a: slaves rank as real estate. This is important because you cannot own the land as land, that belongs to God. You can only have the usage of that land. 16a, note 9 also states this via textual analysis. “we-hithnahaltem, is really applicable to land, and intimates that heathen slaves are transmitted and acquired like land, viz. , by hazakah.”
    • 14b: jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13: master has no ability to refuse this pay.
    • 16a: slaves belong “bodily” which is associated with work, not as a person.
    • 17a: when freed, the master owes the slave a parting gift. Which is higher for non-Jew slaves.
    • 20a: the master owes a compensation for damages after manumitting the slave in many cases.
    • 20a” a man who buys a slave buys a master for himself, speaking of the large set of obligations a master has for servants.
    • 22b: hethen slaves are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free.
    • 23a: slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitely, even against the master’s will.
    • 40b: general times of freeing the slaves (religious or royal proclamations) apply even to slaves that are travelling. Freeing came during times of victory, atonement, or thanksgiving among others.
    • 63a: if a slave is purchased on condition of a release, the slave has a right to demand release after 4 years.
    • 63a: If the slave escapes the court cannot return him.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Yevamoth.pdf
    • 46a: ritual ablution emancipates a slave as part of the conversion process. Part of enslavement meant inclusion in ritual and Sabbath. If the slave chose to complete the process and become a Jew, they were automatically manumitted.
    • 66a: a daughter of a slave who wishes to marry a freeman must be freed.
    • 93b: slaves that escape their masters should not be returned to their masters, but rather are to be set free.
    • 99a: the children of an emancipated slave is a full citizen of Israel, that is a status above and beyond a freeman and virtually unheard of until the 1880s.

    There is additional clarification on just how slavery in Ancient Israel differed not only from its neighbors, but from the concept of slavery in other societies. IE how it was not chattel slavery.


    According to the traditional Jewish law, a slave is more like an indentured servant, who has rights and should be treated almost like a member of the owner's family. Maimonides wrote that, regardless whether a slave is Jewish or not, "The way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a slave, and to provide them from every dish and every drink. The early sages would give their slaves from every dish on their table. They would feed their servants before sitting to their own meals... Slaves may not be maltreated of offended - the law destined them for service, not for humiliation. Do not shout at them or be angry with them, but hear them out". In another context, Maimonides wrote that all the laws of slavery are "mercy, compassion and forbearance"
    Encyclopedia Judaica, 2007, vol. 18, p. 670
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #134
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Trying to say that Lev. 25:6-7 is intended as ensuring income for slaves has got to be one of the funniest things I've read in a while.
    As Stefan Molyneaux is fond of saying, "Not an argument." It is also a good example of what happens when someone without training ignore experts in the field. Do you have a coherent set of reasons as to why this verse does not mean what Hebrew scholars think it means?

    Or why just a little bit later in the chapter God specifically points out that when pricing a land purchase what you are buying is not the land, but the future crops, so you should only pay what those crops are worth since you cannot own the land? The clear statement is that you own the crops. What you gather is yours. What slaves glean is theirs, that's why taking it from them is a sin and a crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And then it say's he won't be punished if the slave who dies under his hand only dies after a couple days.
    It actually doesn't say that. Rather than laboriously go through the verse that you should have read already and understand. Why don't you do that research now, Challenge to support a claim.
    Please support or retract that the following verses say, "he won't be punished if the slave who dies under his hand only dies after a couple days."

    [Hint: what it actually says that the owner isn't to be punished if the slave recovers with no permanent injuries. If the slave dies after a few days, as I've supported earlier in thread, there is no protection from punishment in the Bible, but rather an invocation to investigate all deaths.]

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, the text clearly refers to the slave which dies under the owner's hand.
    It is clear you didn't actually read the explanation, nor the explanation the last time.

    It simply says that punishment isn't automatic if the slave dies after a few days because it isn't presumed to be the master's fault. That whole innocent until proven guilty idea comes in. As I talked to Belthazor about, the death was still an issue for investigation and punishment if fault is found. The difference here is that there was a hearing at the synagogue rather than just a summary punishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Just stop the chattel nonsense, it's not working.
    As with our other definitional discussion, this is an area where you are kind of standing on your own against the bulk of opinion here and from the evidence. As I noted before, if you are going to maintain that the only correct use of the term "slavery" is referring to the situation where people are chattel, that is fine, but you run into a lot of problems because that isn't how the word is used by others, especially translators. Slavery has a much broader context and set of scenarios.

    Again, it is fine, but it then becomes incumbent on you to show that others are using the same atypical limitation you are. That hasn't been done yet. To the contrary, quite a few experts have already been presented arguing that the form of labor relationship being described here is not a scenario where people are chattel property. And, as I pointed out in the last post, if the commentators, OT experts, and experts on near east history are correct, then premise 1 of your OP fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Really? Where does it say that?
    Come on, it was in your quote within post 38!

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Reasonable and humane punishment is fine, but it sounds as thought you're in support of physical beatings as a form of punishment.
    My position is, again, irrelevant. It was your claim that this was an example of Biblical immorality. Can you support that claim or will you retract it? Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, your claim was that giving excessive work leads to manumission.
    Except that is literally what the verse says, if you give them too much work, they will leave slavery (which is seen as a valid option since the master is prevented from going to return them to slavery). I thought you were all into what it literally says?

    You also seem to completely misunderstand what the book of Ecclus. is. It is a work by Ben Sira on the book of Deuteronomy (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/slavery-in-judaism). He is specifically providing explanation of what the book of Deuteronomy requires and how to apply it. The section he is referencing here is the understanding of Deut. 23:16 which prohibits the return of runaway slaves.

    Not to mention I already offered support that this is what the verse means and importantly, how it was interpreted by those who wrote/implemented, way back in post 32.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    why do you think it's odd that a slave subject to permanent ownership would seek liberty?
    For the same reason I would find it odd to see a book saying that pigs will seek to fly. In a system of permanent slavery, why would there be a discussion about a slave becoming free? Not just escaping, not just being a fugitive, but getting "liberty?" That is a concept that doesn't exist in the context of the concept of slavery you are peddling. It only makes sense if there was recognition that slaves could, in fact, become free.

    It would be like saying, "if you make abortion completely illegal, and crack down on anyone trying, people will go to their doctors to get legal abortions." The two concepts cannot exist at the same time. You cannot have both a system that does not recognize manumission (as you claim) and says slaves might try to get manumitted.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    When the property in question is a slave
    Begging the question fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...g_the_Question) You can't use your conclusion to support your own premise.

    Is there a single other case of property being judged to have acted wickedly or had intent?

    Because if there isn't, and I think you know there isn't, it reveals that this concept is fundamentally different than the concept of property ownership as you understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So, you believe using racks and tortures and making fetters heavy affirms the humanity of someone? Nice. I'm thankful we've moved past such barbarism.
    Right, all of our enlightened murdering of fetuses and genocides. Sure glad we've moved past such barbarism into new barbarism.

    Back to the actual point, this is also "not an argument." The verse referenced argues that they should be treated as brothers. Does that affirm their humanity or not?

    If it does, this shows that the concept depicted here violates your concept of people as chattel. People as property do not retain their humanity, they are stripped of it to become slaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Incidentally, Ecclesiasticus is not considered to be canon by Protestants.
    No kidding, and? Neither is a Papal dictate to Catholics, or a Pastor's sermon, does that mean they aren't relevant?

    I'm assuming you aren't really aware of the term Apocrypha, right? Or if you are, that you see it in the shallow comparison to the word apocryphal?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    We're talking about owning people as property. Second, the slavery practiced in America did allow for slaves to purchase their freedom, which the bible doesn't address.
    1) IE we are talking about people being owned as chattel right?

    2) Your second point is actually not quite correct. There are examples of slaves purchasing their freedom in Northern (read non-slave) colonies. Or in the south pre-1700s when "slavery" was more akin to indentured servitude.

    Once slave laws were passed in the South in the early 1700s, even if a master agreed to "free" a slave in exchange for money, that status wasn't a legal status (this is part of the Partus Sequitur Ventrem "reforms" https://events.umich.edu/event/20449.) Any other person was free to enslave him assuming the master had renounced his claim. That is why most historians call the American South a chattel system and use that term to offer distinction. The status of slave in the south arose out of the legal view that a slave wasn't a human being, but sub-human and thus a form of property a la a cart or a horse (this status was often referenced in the anti-miscegenation laws http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_...cegenation.htm or often in those laws referencing earlier laws, http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...44&context=dlj). This specific distinction and prohibition was common in the Slave Codes of the American South (https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml...3/slavery.html). If I "free" my horse into the wild, anyone else is free to make a legal property claim by capturing it. The same is true in the antebellum American South.


    3) I'm really surprised you think the Bible doesn't address slaves purchasing their freedom since it was a central part of the argument and supported with more than a dozen sources in post 32 and beyond. I can only surmise that you didn't read or understand those references, so I'll offer them again.

    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).

    • In Leviticus 25, a slave is guaranteed his own property and earnings, and is able to redeem himself, or be redeemed by his family.
    • Payment of the slave’s price in money frees the slave even if the master does not wish to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • A slave can buy pack a portion of his freedom and then work during that portion of his time for his own benefit, to earn the rest of his freedom. IE if he buys back ‘half” of himself, he works every other day for himself. GIT 41b.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed. KID 6b.
    • Redemption through money earned or acquired mandates manumission. KID 8a.
    • Non-Jewish slaves only (those not freed by the Jubilee) are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will, the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free. KID 22b.



    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.

    • Deut 24 requires the payment of wages and allows slaves to collect left over crops (those not collected on the first pass, the “gleanings”) for their own use.
    • II Sam. 9:10; 16:4; 19:18, 30; cf. I Sam. 9:8 Slaves owning property and receiving wages.
    • Payment of the slave’s price frees the slave, regardless of master’s intention to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • Slaves could hold property of their own (Tosef. Ar. 1:2; Shek. 1:5; Pes. 8:2, 88b; Yev. 66a; TJ, Yev. 7:1; Tosef. BK 11:1; BB 51b–52a; Sanh. 91a, 105a; Ket. 28a; Meg. 16a; etc.),
    • Value of slave labor: Deut 15:18 implies, the work of household slave might be valued at twice the value of a hired man; regardless, Lev 25:40 specifies that the work of the household slave cannot be valued at less than that.
    • If the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given. GIT 12a.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Slaves can earn money through labor and gift. KID 11b.
    • Jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13, master has no ability to refuse this pay. KID 14b.
    • Rates at which slaves must be paid. KID 15a.
    • Slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitly, even against the master’s will. KID 23a.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Where does the bible say this?
    What do you think he means when he says "liberty?"

    The Greek word being used here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/sir033.htm) is ἐλευθερία (before you get worked up, this is a root). http://biblehub.com/greek/1657.htm

    This word specifically refers to the state of no longer being a slave. IE being liberated from slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    All the anti-return states is that someone else can't return a slave to their master.
    Yes, that is why we call them "Non-Slave States."

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Further, as already confirmed by (http://www.bibletrack.org/cgi-bin/bible.pl?mo=04&dy=13:) this concerns a slave who has escaped from his master in some foreign land and sought refuge in Israel, and not the regular slaves kept by Israelites: those taken as plunder in war, purchased from other nations, Hebrew temp./permanent male slaves, Hebrew permanent female slaves, children of any aforementioned slaves born into slavery, etc.
    The commentaries support this:
    "He shall dwell with thee in the place which he shall choose — This shows plainly that the passage is not to be understood of the servants of the Israelites their brethren, but of aliens and strangers"
    "The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land. It is of course assumed that the refugee was not flying from justice, but only from the tyranny of his lord." - The comment about the "refugee not flying from justice" is also interesting, because it precludes thieves sold into slavery (Ex. 22:3) from the anti-return clause.
    "evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people"
    "This is not to be understood universally, as if all servants that flee from their masters [...] might be detained from them by any person to whom they fled for refuge"
    I think you dramatically overstate your case here. You offered a single pastor from a single church's personal website. A guy who doesn't even have a degree in Old Testament Studies, Hebrew, New Testament Studies, Near East literature, Near East history, semetic studies, or any field generally related to hermeneutics. That makes referencing him an appeal to authority fallacy. Can you support that he has the requisite training to make the claim that he does?

    As for your interpretations of the commentaries, they don't offer anything like the support you seem to read into them.

    1) The first commentary is, of course, talking about foreigners, because Israelites are referred to in a completely different section of the law code. Can you support that this commentary specifically only means people who have escaped from foreign captivity as opposed to foreigners working in Israel? Challenge to support a claim.

    2) What does Barnes' commentary here have to do with your claim? He is saying that the specific example he is referencing earlier in his commentary is about a slave fleeing from an unjust master. Did you read the commentary?

    3) Those are some massive elipses you added in there to cut out all the relevant text. If you had bothered to read the entire text you would have noted that Poole is saying that there are likely limitations involving the unjust treatment by their master. He references foreigners because he notes that the Canaanite control of slaves was, by default, unjust. Likewise, he interprets the "dwell among you" proviso in line with what I've written here, that they are from a foreign people, which is what we've been talking about here.

    Moreover, you cherry picked your sample there. You'll notice that Gill, and the Geneva study bible do not comport with your reading. What's more, neither does Wright's commentary (https://books.google.com/books?id=664XW9PPpAgC), D.J.A. Clines' work, Social Responsibility In The Old Testament, Glenn Miller's commentary offers an indepth rebuttal of your exact claim (http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html). As does renowned biblical scholar David Clines here (https://www.academia.edu/3819039/Rec...ament_Theology)
    Finally, what is important here, is that, as I showed in post 32, the authors of the text didn't consider it to be so limited, nor did the legal jurists for next 3 millenia.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And which commentaries don't agree with.
    Well no, two commentaries made statements you, future, interpretted as meaning that. But that happens when you take a commentary out of context. But then this too, "isn't an argument." You are simplying saying "Nu-uh." Do you have an argument to present against Dr. Rushdoony?

    Thus, the only kind of slavery permitted is voluntary slavery, as Deuteronomy 23:15,16 makes very clear...A runaway slave thus cannot be restored to his master: he is free to go. The exception is the thief or criminal who is working out his restitution. The Code of Hammurabi decreed death for men who harbored a runaway slave; the Biblical law provided for the freedom of the slave...and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The biblical law does not provide freedom for all slaves universally
    Even if we were to pretend that your stretched reading of those commentaries was correct (and you'll note the guys with the PhDs after their names say you are wrong), he is still correct as the other provisos offered in post 32 apply to all slaves, regardless:

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    [Obviously this is the case, he can’t be a slave for life if he has been manumitted.

    2) The owner has not injured the slave.

    • [Exodus 21:26,27, any owner that does permanent damage to their slave must set the slave free because of the damage. You’ll notice there is no requirement for intent here as in other places, this is noted by Talmud scholars as indication that even damage done as part of the work or in an accident counts.
    • From the Talmud, any injury that is permanent is included and requires manumission. (KID. 24a).
    • Similarly, and you won’t find this in other legal codes, including our own, if a man injures another man’s slave, he must pay the owner for the loss of the labor, the slave must be freed, and then the man must support the now freedman with charity. (GIT 12b).
    • Again, any permanent damage frees a slave. KID 24a.


    3) The slave has not become disabled.

    • Obviously, the same verse in Exodus applies here, since a disability is a permanent injury.
    • A slave is free if there is any grievous injury caused by the master, this includes in the process of doing service for the master (work place injury). (Kid. 24b–25a; Yad, Avadim 5:4–14; Sh. Ar., YD 267:27–39).
    • Same as above, any injury that has a permanent nature mandates manumission. (Kid. 24a).
    • Any permanent damage frees the slave. GIT 42b.
    • Any disability that makes the slave unfit for service, and this includes natural disability from disease or age, frees the slave. KID 25b.


    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).

    • In Leviticus 25, a slave is guaranteed his own property and earnings, and is able to redeem himself, or be redeemed by his family.
    • Payment of the slave’s price in money frees the slave even if the master does not wish to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • A slave can buy pack a portion of his freedom and then work during that portion of his time for his own benefit, to earn the rest of his freedom. IE if he buys back ‘half” of himself, he works every other day for himself. GIT 41b.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed. KID 6b.
    • Redemption through money earned or acquired mandates manumission. KID 8a.
    • Non-Jewish slaves only (those not freed by the Jubilee) are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will, the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free. KID 22b.



    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.

    • Deut 24 requires the payment of wages and allows slaves to collect left over crops (those not collected on the first pass, the “gleanings”) for their own use.
    • II Sam. 9:10; 16:4; 19:18, 30; cf. I Sam. 9:8 Slaves owning property and receiving wages.
    • Payment of the slave’s price frees the slave, regardless of master’s intention to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • Slaves could hold property of their own (Tosef. Ar. 1:2; Shek. 1:5; Pes. 8:2, 88b; Yev. 66a; TJ, Yev. 7:1; Tosef. BK 11:1; BB 51b–52a; Sanh. 91a, 105a; Ket. 28a; Meg. 16a; etc.),
    • Value of slave labor: Deut 15:18 implies, the work of household slave might be valued at twice the value of a hired man; regardless, Lev 25:40 specifies that the work of the household slave cannot be valued at less than that.
    • If the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given. GIT 12a.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Slaves can earn money through labor and gift. KID 11b.
    • Jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13, master has no ability to refuse this pay. KID 14b.
    • Rates at which slaves must be paid. KID 15a.
    • Slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitly, even against the master’s will. KID 23a.

    Refrences:

    GIT: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf

    KID: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf




    I’ll add to the above that there are a host of other conditions that require manumission, again, distinguishing this institution from chattel slavery.

    • A fugitive slave must not be turned over to his master. (Deut. 23:16).
    • Ben Sira adds: "If thou treat him ill and he proceeds to run away, in what way shalt thou find him?" IE mistreatment is the presumed reason for a slave escaping, thus his return to his master is forbidden. (Ecclus. 33:31).
    • The workload of a slave should never exceed his physical strength, violation of this rule can lead to manumission. (Ecclus. 33:28–29).
    • A verbal promise of release might not be sufficient, but a court will compel the master to issue a written release if a verbal promise was given. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:3 and Sh. Ar., YD 267:73–74).
    • A slave is to be released if the master bequeaths him property (Pe'ah 3:8; Git. 8b–9a; Yad, Avadim 7:9; YD 267:57).
    • A slave is freed automatically by marriage to a freewoman, or by his de facto recognition, in the presence of his master, as a free man such as reading the Torah in public. Git. 39b–40a; Yad, Avadim 8:17; YD 267:70)
    • Marriage to the master's daughter seems to have been a not infrequent means to emancipation (Pes. 113a).
    • A slave may not be sold to a non-Jew. Doing so automatically frees the slave and the master will have to pay a fine as high as ten times the slave’s sale rice (as well as being forced to redeem him from the buyer). (Git. 4:6; Git. 44a–45a; Yad, Avadim 8:1; YD 267:80).
    • A slave who has been jointly owned by two masters and is released by one becomes half-slave half-freeman; the remaining master may also be compelled by the court to release him (Git. 4:5; Yad, Avadim 7:7; YD 267:62–63).
    • The legal principle for decision was “almost every doubt in favor of freedom” and Masters were forced to manumit slaves ("Yad" 'Abadim, ix. 6).

    From the Talmud, listings of the some of the myriad of ways a slave could earn freedom. It also has some textual analysis that refutes your claim that a slave is owned as a person, rather than their labor is owned.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf

    • 8a: If a master attempts to sell his slave outside Israel and it’s protection, or event to travel outside Israel, the slave can request manumission.
    • 8b: if a man assigns property (of the non-movable type to his slave, the slave becomes ipso facto free.
    • 9a: if the slave is not specifically given to offspring, he is free. If the offspring has died or does not come to claim the slave the slave is freed.
    • 9a: promises of freedom are not retractable by the master.
    • 9b: if the slave is joint owned by husband and wife and there is a divorce, if either sets him free, he is free.
    • 12a: if the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given.
    • 20b: if a man and woman divorce and the slave runs to the woman (or man), that woman or man can free him, even if he is the ex’s property.
    • 21a: if the slave was the man’s property, but he gives the slave to his wife when they divorce, the slave cannot be transferred or willed, but is free when she dies.
    • 37b: if a slave is carried off by robbers and then ransomed to someone as a freeman, rather than explicitly sold back as a slave, he is free.
    • 38a: a slave who escapes from prison is a free man and the master can be compelled to create a writ of manumission.
    • 38a: if the master has given up hope of recovering the slave, the slave is freed regardless of how they are ransomed or released or escape.
    • 38b: if a slave woman marries a freeman, she is free. (Jews pass lineage through the female, and thus it was seen as unduly burdensome to create a perpetual slave line and prevented their ability to marry, which is seen as sacrosanct from God).
    • 38b: if a tenth man is needed to make a quorum at the synagogue, the slave is freed for the religious obligation. If the master likewise consecrates his slave, he is free. Similarly, if he declares him common property he is a free man.
    • 39b: a man who gives up hope on a slave from sickness or being lost, or being captured, frees the man.
    • 40a: if a slave marries a free woman in the presence of a master he is freed. Or if the master arranged the marriage.
    • 40a: if a master borrows money from a slave, the slave is freed.
    • 44a: if a man uses his slave as collateral to a heathen, and he defaults the man is free, if the slave escapes from the heathen he is free.
    • 44b: if a man sells his slave while abroad, he becomes free (this is one of the reasons the entire concept died out following the diaspora).

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf
    • 4a: slave has rights to end service
    • 6b: services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed.
    • 6b, Note 7: cannot be sold to non-Jew or into a case of worse service than they had.
    • 8a: slaves rank as real estate. This is important because you cannot own the land as land, that belongs to God. You can only have the usage of that land. 16a, note 9 also states this via textual analysis. “we-hithnahaltem, is really applicable to land, and intimates that heathen slaves are transmitted and acquired like land, viz. , by hazakah.”
    • 14b: jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13: master has no ability to refuse this pay.
    • 16a: slaves belong “bodily” which is associated with work, not as a person.
    • 17a: when freed, the master owes the slave a parting gift. Which is higher for non-Jew slaves.
    • 20a: the master owes a compensation for damages after manumitting the slave in many cases.
    • 20a” a man who buys a slave buys a master for himself, speaking of the large set of obligations a master has for servants.
    • 22b: hethen slaves are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free.
    • 23a: slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitely, even against the master’s will.
    • 40b: general times of freeing the slaves (religious or royal proclamations) apply even to slaves that are travelling. Freeing came during times of victory, atonement, or thanksgiving among others.
    • 63a: if a slave is purchased on condition of a release, the slave has a right to demand release after 4 years.
    • 63a: If the slave escapes the court cannot return him.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Yevamoth.pdf
    • 46a: ritual ablution emancipates a slave as part of the conversion process. Part of enslavement meant inclusion in ritual and Sabbath. If the slave chose to complete the process and become a Jew, they were automatically manumitted.
    • 66a: a daughter of a slave who wishes to marry a freeman must be freed.
    • 93b: slaves that escape their masters should not be returned to their masters, but rather are to be set free.
    • 99a: the children of an emancipated slave is a full citizen of Israel, that is a status above and beyond a freeman and virtually unheard of until the 1880s.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #135
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Because that's what they say.
    I'm afraid that isn't how it works here at ODN. You don't simply get to point to a link and say "see that is what it says." Ignoring the fact that you seem to have missed over the concept of how language is used and that meaning is interpreted by the reader, you are required here to offer a logical defense of your argument. http://www.onlinedebate.net/index.php?page=odnrules
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that these verses are describing a scenario where a person is owned as chattel.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    When you hire a someone to do a job, you're hiring the person, not the job.
    Careful, you are losing a lot of the point by just saying 'you hire someone.' When you hire someone you contract with them to exchange their labor for goods or services. So when I contract with them, I am contracting for the service, IE the labor, not the person. Your labor contract doesn't say "we will exchange wages for Dave" it says "we will exchange wages for this service." You hire the services, not the individual. That is why subcontracting is a thing btw.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And Lev. 25:24 refers to the land as people's possession.
    Which gets us back to our friend: 'achuzzah, which going way back you'll remember means the product or use of something. That is why it is used in reference to a grave. You don't own a hole in the ground, you possess the hole by using it as a grave. Or when referencing Joseph giving his family a place to live, clearly it didn’t mean that they owned that land, but that Pharoah let them live on that land. Or in Lev 25:10 where people are returned to the land they are from. Obviously, they don't own the land because they are penniless, but they have a place where they are to reside or to use. Or you can read any of the uses in Numbers where it clearly means "the share for you to use out of something."

    Or you can review our discussion of the word here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post555136


    What's more, to read the second verse as you would, you would have to ignore the first verse. So unless you are arguing that authors forgot sentence 1 when writing sentence 2 (a pretty unlikley idea), an understanding of the term more in line with "yours to use" rather than "you own" is appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So the land is the property of the Israelites who own it and are able to lease it to others for the duration until the jubilee, when it returns to the original possessor as their property.
    Exactly my point. The commentaries here are describing a situation where parts of Israel have been designated as areas for certain families to live in. They can use the fruits of that land for themselves, including renting it or leasing it to others, but they cannot transfer property rights to others because the original property rights are not theirs to transfer.

    That sounds like a rent arrangement, not ownership. You can sublet an apartment you are renting, but not sell it. If you owned the home, you can sell it. If you are the property owner, you have a right to sell.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again from the commentaries
    You ignored the bulk of my post: That interpretation requires us to ignore the totality of Hebrew social structures, the entire Exodus story, several specific verses listed above noting that the Israelites don't own factors of production, just the production, and the consensus of dozens of scholars linked in four different posts.

    Alternatively, it doesn't make sense in the actual text itself as I pointed out. Just because a verb and noun are in the same sentence does not mean that the noun is the object of the verb. "Steve owns Mike's cat" doesn't mean that Steve owns Mike, we have to consider the sentence construct, the subject, the object, and the conjugation of the verb. You gloss over that despite the provided evidence.

    Again you've adopted a relatively strained reading of those small bits of the commentaries you chose to review. Readings that are contrary to the rest of the commentary. Regardless, they don’t really support your point. Here the commentaries are noting that there is a distinction between an Israelite and a non-Israelite. Absolute (remember Ellitcott has training as a lawyer) means that the relationship isn't subject to relevant restrictions. IE since we are talking about the difference between Jews and non-Jews, the restrictions related to Jubilee. So yeah, out of foreign nations come slaves not subject to jubilee, no one has argued otherwise.

    Nothing you've offered says that they human beings themselves were owned. You keep demanding that we simply read things plain text, but you don't seem to offer any plain text commentaries that support your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, what is obtained is people from specific groups of people. The commentaries support this: "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property." It's specifying which people from which groups can be owned as property as slaves.
    You've conflated two arguments here. The first is your misunderstanding of the term absolute property. The second is you misunderstanding of Hebrew sentence construction.
    If it were the people themselves that were added to the possessions, it would be sufficient to say, “the sojourners can be added to your possessions” or some version of that. We would see towshab by itself, without modifier. But we don’t.

    We see it modified to say “of the sojourners” or “from the sojourners.” That is a very different construct. So we get something that comes from those people rather than the people themselves.

    Unless you can show why the Hebrew authors would have added all that additional wording to their sentences or show that the Hebrew subject/object/noun chain supports your conclusion, you are just making an unsupported assertion.

    Your rebuttal to the argument above doesn't involve sentence construction, but your misunderstanding of a legal term. Do you have evidence that the Hebrew authors would have added the additional words to their sentences or that the Hebrew subject/object/noun chain supports your conclusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    It's a ridiculous point which is clearly addressed by the fact that the verse doesn't indicate that the product of people is bought, but that people of specific groups are bought.
    "Not an argument." This is a bare assertion fallacy. You haven't addressed that there this exact sentence construct is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to the products of something, not the thing itself. Your "no it doesn't" response doesn't change that.

    Notice the parallel structures in Lev 25:14 and Neh 10:31 where we are buying something from someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property."
    Setting aside your limited understanding of the terminology used, you didn't respond to my point, "If this was such an obvious concept, you would think that you could find a single commentary somewhere by a respected academic that says it unambiguously. I've offered several that reject your hypothesis after all. Can't you offer one, single unambiguous support?"

    Why, after 8 pages haven't you been able to produce a single commentary or source that says what you claim, "the Bible says it is ok to own people as chattel."

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    In the commentary for Lev. 24:44-46, Ellitcottt uses the words "slave", "bondmen", "servant", and "serfdom". So what?
    It indicates that those with deeper knowledge of the subject understand there are distinctions that can be drawn. The Hebrew word is far broader than the English word for slave. The Hebrew word would cover hiring a workman, or having a job contract in exchange for tuition payments, or military enlistment, or even informally pledging to serve someone for a period of time.

    That is a huge range of relationships that don't all carry the same meaning, context, or impact as slavery that involves humans as chattel. Ellitcott is intentionally making that distinction here, it seems imprudent to reject it.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, the human being is the personal property of the slave-owner. The human being is transmissible as inheritance property. The phrase about the authority being restricted to their labour doesn't change that
    You are imparting your understanding of what slavery is onto Ellitcott. He doesn't say "the human being is transmissible as inheritance property" that is future's reading. It is an equally valid reading to say "the claim on their labor is transmissible as inheritance property" a concept we use today via share. In fact, it is a far more coherent reading because it fits in with Ellitcott's note that the master's authority is limited to the labor, and does not extend to the human being.

    For Ellitcott to write that the authority is related to the labor, but then "forget" to clarify that inheritance relates to the person, not the labor is something a 6th Grade writer would do, not a noted academic and famous author. In order for your reading to hold we would need to attribute a fundamental grammatical error to an author of great repute, which seems unlikely. To hold to my interpretation, we just have to read his sentence. Weren't you the one who said we just just take things at face value?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    That's a verbatim cite, not him using the term.
    Exactly my point. If an author who knew and used the term chattel slavery (which had its origins about 50 years before Ellitcott's writing) in other writings suddenly didn't use it here, that gives us a clue that he means something different. It would be like Justice Ginsberg referencing a case as case law rather than precedent. That use of a different term to a lawyer is a huge deal (one is considered guiding on a case the other is just context), the same is true here. The use of "Chattel Slavery" in England during the 19th Century was prolific as the abolitionist movement was wide spread. Ellicott was part of that movement and referenced its lexicon. Suddenly using a different term is indicative that he is referencing a different concept. Especially when you take the full paragraph in context as I quoted. He is clearly indicating that the relatonship was a labor one (he indicates this by literally saying it) not a chattel one (again indicated by literally saying it didn't extend to the person).

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, I asserted that your claim with Ecclus. 33 is not a condition for manumission.
    You asserted it, but you didn't support. There is a difference between a naked claim and a supported argument. Regardless, you are again conflating two issues. Ecclus. 33 was referring to the requirement to mandate if labor exceeded normal wage laborer amounts (a position supported by Hebrew scholars cited).

    Ellicott isn't talking about Ecclus. 33. This paragraph is discussing Leviticus 25, a totally different manumission requirement. He also draws a parallel with Exodus 21:26-27, which has its own manumission requirement.

    This one quote (along with the two dozen requirements from post 32) directly contradicts your claim that there were no conditions that require manumission.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Please support this claim.
    Please see above for my support. In the situation where slaves are chattel, the release of an ownership claim by one owner does not mean they lose their status as chattel or property. Note the citations of US and State law on the issue as well as the example of releasing a horse.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The point is that the author is trying to make Lev. 25:46 sound as though people are not being inherited as property, but nations are. Again, this is ridiculous and not supported by a plain-text reading or the commentaries.
    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this isn't an argument. It is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. The closest thing you have to a defense here is an invocation of the kind of reading we were taught to avoid as early as 6th grade (remember context reading?). And even that doesn't explain why that kind of read would defend your point.

    You completely ignore a very common example we use every day that has the same distinction, so calling it "ridiculous" is inappropriate, unless you are also claiming that every single financial professional on the planet that understands and uses the term "shareholder" doesn't understand the word they are using, and that you alone, future, understand what is meant.

    Neither do you defend or maintain your other "examples." Corporal punishment does not imply chattel ownership. The state can corporally punish you, it doesn't mean you are the state's property. The army can corporally punish you, it doesn't mean the army owns you as property.

    Ironically you are making the same argument that Southern Slave holding farmers made against educated ministers and professors. It really isn't any more convincing now than it was then.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Which states allow corporal punishment?
    Virtually all of them? How do you not know this?

    19 States allow schools to engage in corporal punishment: http://www.businessinsider.com/19-st...ishment-2014-3

    Most states still allow for judicial corporal punishment, even if it is essentially never practiced: https://www.academia.edu/10171334/Pr...ment_of_Adults

    Federal law allows for a variety of corporal punishments under statutes that generally aren't invoked very often (piracy, wife beating, etc.) http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/...2&context=iclr


    Can you address the merit of the point which is that corporal punishment does not equate to chattel ownership?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Which US military code states that corporal punishment is allowed? I believe UCMJ Article 93 specifically bars such conduct.
    Speaking as a 14 year Army Officer that has taught courses on UCMJ at Officer Candidate School, I would say this is incorrect.

    You are incorrect about this reading. Article 93 bars cruelty or maltreatment (http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-10-pu...d-maltreatment), that includes toxic leadership or random punishment (corporal or not). It doesn't include any punishments handed down through official processs such as Article 15s or Courts Martial.

    What you might be thinking of is Article 855, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. That article, however, only applies to a select set of corporal punishments, flogging, branding, marking, or tattooing. It doesn't apply to other corporal punishments used as "corrective training" or "inducement to comply." (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/c...&context=yrlsa)

    Additionally, aside from the ultimate corporal punishment (capital punishment) most of the punitive articles within the UCMJ allow the Courts Martial board to direct punishment as it would prefer. This can include all kinds of corporal punishments as long as they don't fall under the "cruel and unusual" strictures specifically noted above. http://www.ucmj.us/category/sub-chap...itive-articles

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And yet, the fact that they were even able to make it proves that the bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.
    No more so than the fact that flat earther's use of shadows means that the physical world supports flat earth theory right? Or would you actually maintain that the world cannot be used as a serious guide to physics?

    Just because an observer incorrectly interprets something doesn't mean that the underlying evidence is actually there.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I never said they need to be only associated with it - they don't. This is a straw-man.
    My apologies, I assumed you meant to imply that because it was necessary for your argument to be coherent. Otherwise you are making a formal fallacy (if a, then b, b therefore a). If you accept (as you seem to here) that these are core principles of other concepts, you have no merit by which to say that their existence means slavery is present.

    Take the classic example, the grass is wet. We know that the grass is wet when it rained, but seeing the grass wet doesn't mean that it rained. It could have been watered for example.

    Tying that back to the formal rejection:
    If a -> b
    If slavery, then "being bought, sold, passed down as inheritance, and beaten" [Note: this is an unproven claim. If you wish to maintain this claim you would need to support it, Challenge to support a claim.
    B -> a
    "being bought, sold, passed down as inheritance, and beaten, " therefore slavery.

    Except you and I correctly note that the second statement isn't true:

    I can whip a tree and not own a tree. I can own my dog and not be allowed to whip it (which is illegal).

    I cannot buy an automatic firearm (I lack a class three license), but there is no doubt that that firearm is, indeed, property. Nor am I allowed to sell land to a foreign agent, but there is no doubt that that land is my property.


    More importantly, what is the result of this clarification? That your attempt to rebuttal the work of the abolitionists falls short. You cited this "core principles" concept as a rebuttal of their distinction between Biblical concepts and southern Chattel Slavery. Since this core concept defense ended up being fallacious, their distinction still holds:

    3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE for your children after you to inherit them for a possession." This refers to the nations, and not to the individual servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be held as a property-possession, and inheritance; that they became servants of their own accord, and were paid wages; that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly half the days in each year, and thoroughly instructed; that the servants were protected in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters, &c. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable "possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our American slaves were all placed in just such a condition! Alas, for that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together! What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other passages—and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing usages, thus making God pander for lust. The words nahal and nahala, inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify articles of property. "The people answered the king and said, we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of property? "Children are an heritage (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine inheritance." Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children, does he make them articles of property? Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a heritage" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "I am their inheritance." Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance." Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance." Ps. xciv. 14. See also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"possession," has been already discussed—pp. 37—46—we need add in this place but a word, āhuzzā rendered "possession." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the possession of the Israelites? Answer, in the sense of having it to live in. In what sense were the Israelites to possess these nations, and take them as an inheritance for their children? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a perpetualprovision for your children after you, to hold as a constant source of supply. ALWAYS of them shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the class of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the way in which they were to get them.
    Link provided originally.

    ---------- Post added at 10:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    If you go to someone else's property and start whipping or breaking branches off their trees to use as firewood or building materials, you'll quickly find out that you don't own the tree.
    And...?
    Of course if I destroy a tree that someone else owns it would be an issue, but that issue is indicative of their ownership, not the whipping.

    If the tree is owned by no one (as the original hypothetical actually put forward), I can whip it, right?

    My ability to whip it doesn't mean that I own the tree, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Disciplinary punishment of your pet, within reason, is perfectly acceptable.
    Red herring. I described whipping the pet, not generic discipline. We both agree that it is illegal to whip your pet right?

    But that you still own your pet right?

    Thus, it is possible to own something and not be allowed to whip it.

    Much of this is already moot given your above clarification that resulted in a formal fallacy, but it is important to clarify why your argument was a formal fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Ex. 20:17 groups wives in together with other articles of property.
    And? Why does coveting something mean that it is viewed as a property contract?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Extensive use of “baal” instead of "ishi" to refer to a husband being the lord and owner of his wife.
    I noticed that that was the crux of the argument presented on the site you linked. Given that it offers no other Biblical evidence, but rests on this single word issue, the fact that it gets the word wrong means the site isn't relevant to your support.

    The word (which is ba'al not baal, baal is a Phonecian and Canaanite god) is defined as:
    בַּעַל baʻal, bah'-al; from H1166; a master; hence, a husband, or (figuratively) owner (often used with another noun in modifications of this latter sense):— archer, babbler, bird, captain, chief man, confederate, have to do, dreamer, those to whom it is due, furious, those that are given to it, great, hairy, he that hath it, have, horseman, husband, lord, man, married, master, person, sworn, they of.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H1167&t=NIV

    IE that in Hebrew, when it is used with another noun (in this case wife), it isn't taken literally. This is seen in Genesis 14:13 where the word is translated as "Allies" https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/gen/14/13/s_14013

    So unless you are claiming that Abram "owned" his allies, this is a ridiculous contention.
    Further, no serious Jewish source claims that women were property under Jewish law. Rather, marriage was seen as a contract between equals, a husband and a wife, where the husband was required to give the dowry to the wife, not the parents so that she would be supported in case of his death or of their divorce. The fact that she could divorce her husband is defining evidence that she wasn't seen as property. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/...5&context=iclr

    Unless you can offer a source that shows Jews saw wives as the property of husbands this claim fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    As I already explained, the difference of the property grouping in Eccl. 2:7 is due to the difference in the statement being made about each - the slaves being mentioned simply as property he had, but the cattle being mentioned explicitly because of the quantity he had compared to others
    I saw your attempted explanation, but it is a red herring fallacy. Nothing about their being "numbered" (and they aren't as I pointed out, a "herd of cattle" is just as much a group as "servants", one just has a specific name for the group while the other is simply grouped) is relevant to their status as property.

    The argument is that when in lists, their status as people is clearly defined, that isn't the clarification of an author who saw them as property like everything else on the list. The author is specifically referring to their status as people and thus, for Israelites "created in God's image."

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    From that very same page:
    "Outline of Biblical Usage:
    E. young (of animals)
    H. of lifeless things"

    Further, the section of definitions includes the following non-humans: bough, branch, breed, (young) bullock, (young) calf, colt, foal, kid, lamb
    You didn't look at the legend did you? Notice the Xs and +s next to those examples? The + indicate that those usages are for Greek words used as parrallels in later texts. IE in the New Testament when a greek word is used that has a similar (though not exact) idea as ben, it can also mean these things. It doesn't mean that ben is used in that sense. The X represents a Hebrew Idiom. Idioms are figurative phrases (like lend me your ears), not to be taken literally.

    Again, notice that at no point in the Old Testament is ben used specifically to reference a non-person in a literal sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So again, on what planet does that mean "don't kill them, save them from destruction".
    In context obviously and as I pointed out earlier. The command in the verse is to not kill them, but to bâzaz, to take with you. Simply adding the Hebrew roots isn’t conducting analysis, it is simply adding a root, without its additional conjugation, or conjunctions, or sentence structure.

    So, what is your point here? The verse is telling the Israelites to save the women, children, and cattle from the destruction and to take them with them (that is what bazaz literally means). IE “Don’t kill them, remove them from the destruction and take them with you.”


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    To be kept as slaves, duh.
    So you concede then that this verse is commanding the Israelites to not kill them. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So, the Israelites murdered all their men and destroyed their families so that they could care for them and be super-duper nice in all the ways you describe?
    You are arguing against a cartoon parody of the actual work rather than engaging the text in a wholistic context and consulting the understanding of legitimate scholars. This is relatively clear in the manner of your response which here tended to the personal and emotive rather than the objective and descriptive. "what you are doing is disgusting" not "the sentence structure or word meaning has this contemprory context..." If you cannot approach the subject calmly it might be an indicator that you are falling victim to a host of cognitivie biases like framing bias, the Semmelweis reflex, the Dunning-Kruger effect, or choice-supportive bias.

    Unless you are seriously maintaining that conflict and war are not a real part of life, then this is a silly and polyannaish rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Chuck Smith's commentary: "go in, kill all the men and leave all the women and children alive
    So you concede the argument that the verse specifically instructs them to let them live and then to care for them. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, "the spoil they are allowed to take to themselves, in which were reckoned the women and children. Note, A justifiable property is acquired in that which is won in lawful war". The people are the property. A plain text reading supports this as well as the commentaries.
    First, I'll note that you provided no citation of this claim, which is a rule violation, please be more vigilant in the future.

    Second, the reason you probably didn't include the link is because it directly contradicts your claim and supports mine:

    A justifiable property is acquired in that which is won in lawful war. God himself owns the title: The Lord thy God gives it thee; and therefore he must be owned in it,
    https://www.biblestudytools.com/comm...ronomy/20.html

    God is the owner, not the people. The masters only have claim to the fruits of the labor.

    As I pointed out earlier, that isn't what the verses mean either in appropriate context or even in a plain text reading. You don't consume the people, you consume what they produce. I don't consume the land, I consume the fruits of the land. Conflating the two concepts is intellectually lazy.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I asked you on what basis do you accept the super-ultra-moral and lengthy anti-slavery interpretations over what the text says?
    Which, as I pointed out, is a false dichotomy fallacy (and a begging the question fallacy since you presume your reading to be the correct one in order to reject evidence that it isn't the correct reading).

    Unless you have an argument that shows that educated writers for the last two thousand years have all gotten their reading wrong, and that future's reading is the correct one, this argument holds no water.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I'm not ignoring it - I've explained why it doesn't carry weight over the plain text readings and commentaries supporting #1.
    Because plain text reading isn't a thing. When you say "plain text reading" what you mean is "how future reads that passage." There is no object thing as a "plain text reading." The closest we can come is the consensus reading of people as they read it. And in order to keep it from being an appeal to popularity fallacy, we should limit that reading to the consensus of experts. As I've shown on several different pages now, the consensus of Jewish scholars, scholars at Oxford, Harvard, Yale, modern scholars, Aquinas, even the Southern Baptist Church, and several Popes has been to accept the "plain text" reading I put forward, and reject your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I'm not accepting the readings of self-interested slave-owners. It's plain-text readings supported by biblical scholar commentary, dude.
    Except that is literally the only historical group to hold the position you did. So you are, de facto, agreeing with their reading of the verse and rejecting the consensus of the scholarly community. Nor can you claim to be hiding in the commentaries, rather you've just taken small portions of them and then not included the link to prevent easy refutation. Once the whole section of the commentary is included, your argument falls away.

    So far, the only "source" you've been able to offer is your own opinion, which means your take is unsupported.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Another straw-man, boy are you on a roll, or what?!... the very fact that the bible was used for so long to support owning people as property
    These two sections are inconsistent. My rebuttal can't be a strawman if you literally make the same argument a sentence later.

    Who used the Bible to support owning people as chattel? Was it the Catholic Church? No..Was it Oxford scholars? No...Was it Yale scholars? No...Aquinas maybe? No...

    That's right! It was a sub set of uneducated farmers in the American, Ante-bellum South! IE the only people who agree with your reading.

    So it is a bit odd to subscribe to that tiny, tiny, self interested sub-set rather than 25 centuries of scholarly consensus on the actual plain text reading of the Old Testament. By your reasoning, we are fools to think the Reptilians aren't in charge, after all 8% of Americans think so, right? That is a much, much higher percentage than the one you are relying on.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I'm not simply ignoring it - I've explained for you why it's irrelevant to the OP.
    Except the OP makes no such reservation. You invented that later when it was clear that scholarly consensus disagreed with you.

    Further, your arguments here undermine your claim that it is irrelevant. If you are relying on a "plain text" reading, ie an interpretation people get when reading the text, then you need to consider the interpretation of the people who actually wrote the text! Each of the quoted sections has voluminous Biblical support and references. The Talmud is not just some stand alone document, it is a coherent understanding of Biblical law and precedent. The authors were strict in their citation and reference requirements.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I'm done playing games with you, Squatch.
    That's fine, but since you haven't supported your OP, nor the other claims made within the thread, you are tacitly admitting that your conclusion doesn't stand. You are free to resign from the thread, but that simply means you've lost the argument.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #136
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Below are the sections not responded to. Note: There are challenges issued in those sections. The claims challenged are de facto retracted until support is offered. Further usage of these claims without support will be reported as a rule violation:

    Do you have evidence that the secular moral system is “greatly more” subscribed to now?



    You need to offer support that whatever the moral code/system is, it is based on objective observations.



    It is a "fact" that owning people as property goes against the goals set by the moral system.



    The use of 'achuzzah in Lev 25:45 is specifically for people



    1) The original claim was made by you in the OP: “To address slavery in the bible from a moral perspective, it is defined here as: "owning a person as property".”

    Thus it was the initial claim, there are literally no other posts before it. So… Please support or retract that the verse actually refers to the person, rather than you read it as referring to the person.



    Please support or retract that the following verses say, "he won't be punished if the slave who dies under his hand only dies after a couple days."



    It was your claim that this was an example of Biblical immorality. Can you support that claim or will you retract it?



    Can you support that this commentary specifically only means people who have escaped from foreign captivity as opposed to foreigners working in Israel?



    Support or retract that these verses are describing a scenario where a person is owned as chattel.



    If slavery, then "being bought, sold, passed down as inheritance, and beaten" [Note: this is an unproven claim. If you wish to maintain this claim you would need to support it,







    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I really don't get where you've pulled out this mass of scholars, but simply looking at the readily-available commentaries, it's clear that most people think that when the bible refers to people by using words meaning people, the bible is referring to people.
    So...you don't have outside support? Simply linking to a commentary without an argument isn't defense of your position. Notice the more than 25 independent sources I offered in the that response and the accompanying explanations of how those sources supported my position.

    Again, absent an outside reference and explanation of how it supports your point, this is just a bare assertion fallacy.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Your second reference is actually a perfect illustration of not considering the ideas in context. The servants are to be inherited like "immovable goods, as fields, vineyards" etc. But remember we already pointed out both in the Talmud and the Old Testament that the Jews don't own the fields or the vineyards, just the output of the fields and the vineyards.

    Lev 25:23: “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers."

    You'll also remember that way back in post 32 I noted that the Talmud (specifically Gittin) references this verse as support for the idea that slaves were not directly owned by the master just as the land was not directly owned, but that God had given over the produce of the land and the produce of the people to them, not direct ownership.

    Also in Leviticus 25, when God is explaining the repayment of loans during Jubilee:
    15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

    The point here is that you don't own the land, what you are buying is the crops.

    Or as a Biblical historian pointed out:



    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).

    https://wallbuilders.com/bible-slave...icas-founders/


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    1) It is relevant to your premise around secular moral codes. The last variant you offered argued that a secular moral code in modern America disagreed about slavery. The problem is that the modern secular moral code in America is about chattel slavery. If the Bible isn't referring to chattel slavery as I've supported, than this premise is rejected. Take an example:

    C1: Everyone likes apples.
    Counter 1: Steve doesn't like Apples.

    We seem to have a conflict. Until:

    P3: When Steve says Apple he is referring to the laptop, the argument is referring to the fruit.

    That is what is happening here, two separate terms are being conflated because the OP isn't bothering to distinguish what is meant in the relevant contexts.

    2) Slavery in the chattel system is inherent to the person, to the race. It is part of their identity, inescapable. That is very different in a moral context from it being the tasks you do. Saying, "no that isn't human it is a slave" is a very different moral statement than "that human being works for another human being."


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    That is a concept completely alien to the type of slavery you are suggesting is at play here. We literally had dozens of court cases and constitutional crises about this very concept in the US. In fact, it was the move from an indentured servitude type of slavery to chattel slavery in Virginia in the 1600s that provoked northern colonies to rule out that kind of system within their own charters.

    When Virginia changed its definition from a form of limited in time, work relationship to a "this race of people aren't human beings and are only property" we saw the rise of the abolitionist movement in the Colonies and in Britain based on the principle that this was unbiblical as pretty conclusively shown earlier.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Additionally, since you added the imprudent "any way" modifier to your claim, you need to explain why; a) the Bible contains discussion of a repatriation price (a concept fundamentally at odds with chattel slavery/owning a human being rather than their services) and b) why that price is tied to the amount of labor they can do, not their status as a human being.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    None of that addresses the vocabulary or literary structure being discussed however. You are insisting on an English point that no one is claiming as a rebuttal for a discussion on Hebrew sentence and word construction.

    Again, return to the point I just issued where I already addressed those exact commentaries (as above or in my last post). Do you have a commentary that says that people, themselves are owned? If this was such an obvious concept, you would think that you could find a single commentary somewhere by a respected academic that says it unambiguously. I've offered several that reject your hypothesis after all. Can't you offer one, single unambiguous support?




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    So any number of people coming together and dealing with morality outside of a religious system constitutes our shared moral system? So when NAMBLA came together and discussed and concluded that sexual activity between adults and children was a moral goal, that would be part of our secular moral system under your definition, right?



    If not, why not?




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    It is relevant because it goes to our access to knowing what is part of that moral system. If we are going to evaluate this moral system both from what it supposedly contains and its alleged moral superiority, we need to know where to find its values.



    Your premise would seem to be that any effort or action outside of a religious context constitutes the workings of a secular moral system, is that correct?



    Your last clause is also interesting. How do we “objectively identify” the goals of this moral system? How were they objectively identified? This seems contradictory to your first response where you indicate that it is the actions of people coming together, clearly different groups of these people could have contradictory goals, and more importantly, a group of people coming together to set a goal is, by definition, subjective, not objective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Well giving your definition above, there are many goals that secular groups have come together to discuss and advocate for that aren’t contained in the law. If one of the definitions you offered was them coming together to change the law (amongst other things), then we have to acknowledge that the law can be out of step with our current secular moral code, right?




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Yes, sadly there are a lot of anti-Semitic groups that have a desire to shut down Nizkor (a site that defends that the Holocaust was, in fact, historical).



    Your analogy isn’t quite correct either. If someone were arguing that the goal of hockey is to get the puck in the net as evidenced by the fact that a lot of hockey players try to do that, then that would be an appeal to popularity fallacy. If, rather, they said the goal of hockey is to get the puck in the net as evidenced by the fact that hockey players try to get the puck in the net, that would be an appeal to their expertise, which isn’t a fallacy (since they do have an expertise in the game).



    I think if we look at the actual definition for an appeal to popularity, you’ll see why your original point that we know action x is wrong because “contemporary people in many places have worked to establish organizations and laws against it” is an appeal to popularity fallacy:





    The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

    1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

    2. Therefore X is true.

    The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

    It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

    This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persuasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

    This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

    Link from last post



    I’d add also the text for the appeal to common practice fallacy too since you seem to be almost exactly referencing that flavor of fallacy in your argument:



    Description of Appeal to Common Practice

    The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

    1. X is a common action.

    2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

    The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.



    There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:

    1. Most people do X.

    2. Therefore X is morally correct.

    would not be a fallacy. This would however entail some odd results. For example, imagine that there are only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one's view simply by eliminating those who disagree.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Ok, if true, how do we know the proposition, “Action X violates the goals of our secular moral system” to be true?



    How can I know that, say adults having sex with children, violates our secular moral system if there are groups advocating against it and groups advocating for it?




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    This is a bare assertion fallacy. Do you have evidence of these claims? The only surveys I’m aware of are the ones that indicate people are less denominational. Atheistic belief seems to be steady or declining the last time I checked. Regardless, their belief structure is a different claim than the one you are arguing.

    Do you have evidence that the secular moral system is “greatly more” subscribed to now? If not, you would need to retract that claim. Challenge to support a claim.






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    This doesn’t support the claim. You need to offer support that whatever the moral code/system is, it is based on objective observations. Please support or retract that claim. Challenge to support a claim.





    I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but the status of the code as objective or subjective is critical to your argument. If the code is, in fact, subjective, your argument for its superiority is fallacious and the structure of your OP falls apart.






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I get that you are making that claim, but I asked you to support how you know that fact. Can you offer support that that claim is, indeed, a fact? Challenge to support a claim.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    You are still confusing whether people accept an objective, factual claim as true with whether it is an objective, factual claim or not.



    Is this statement a factual claim? “The sun revolves around the earth.”



    Yes, of course it is. It can be wrong, but it is still an objective, factual claim.



    Further you are committing a bit of an argument from ignorance fallacy here. Because an objective moral code hasn’t been proven to be true (a claim you haven’t supported) doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Well that is a bit different. Individual elements within the system being objective aren’t really relevant. What is relevant, and necessary, to your argument is that the output of that system is objective. IE when your system says “murder is wrong” is it making that statement as a “it is wrong for everyone, for all time, regardless of individual opinions” or as a “we have determined that it is goes against our values?”



    Which statement is closer to how the system you imagine works?




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    My last statement was that you just stated that the laws do not comport to the moral code. They both do not contain the entirety of the moral obligations nor only contain elements from the moral system.



    I determined those as the criteria for “real insight” because I am using the basic rules for comparing two groups.



    For example. Would I say “I understand Literature because I’ve read the collected works of Shakespeare?” Of course not, Shakespeare isn’t anything like the whole body of literature. Shakespeare also contains elements of poetry rather than literature.



    In order to understand what my reading of Shakespeare contributes to my understanding of literature, I need to understand a lot more about what the body of literature is, and which parts of Shakespeare contribute to it.



    Likewise here, if we are going to say that the laws are some kind of evidence of the existence of a moral pronouncement, we need to understand what part of your moral system is reflected in the laws and what part isn’t. Likewise, what part of the law come from places other than your moral system, etc.



    You need to offer a lot more detail if you are going to support, as you claim, that it violates “our” secular moral code.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I get that you claim that it does, but given the broad array of possible goals being set by that system, do you have any support that this is an uncontested goal? IE are there no groups coming together outside of a religious context that disagree with that goal?



    And interestingly, are you saying that your moral code only applies to those who choose to adopt it? If so, you would agree that it is a definitionally subjective system then, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    How can it be used to make objective assessments? Can you give an example of an objective assessment?

    For example, a group of people coming together, outside a religious context, to declare that X is wrong, isn’t an objective assessment. You could argue that X goes against their moral decision is objective, sure, but that isn’t an objective assessment about morality, it is an objective assessment about their subjective position on morality.

    Jan doesn’t like strawberry ice cream is an objective statement too, but it doesn’t mean Jan’s distaste for strawberry ice cream is objective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Then you are stating that your system is subjective by definition. If the moral assessments generated by the system are defined as dependent on who the people in that system are, it is definitionally subjective, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Actually eugenics was a moral system. Its fundamental tenant was that people who don’t produce enough don’t deserve to live. That is a moral pronouncement. The belief that a society should exterminate unproductive people to make itself better is absolutely a moral system. Eugenics held, at its core, the assertion that it was wrong to let “undesirables” procreate. That is indisputably a moral claim.



    I’m saying that we can’t take the superiority of any given moral system for granted. Your argument makes that assertion with no support. What reason or argument or support do you have to say that this moral system is better than any other?



    Eugenics made some objective moral claims as well. “People who make less than a living wage are parasites and don’t deserve to live.” I would imagine that you would argue your system is morally superior to that system. Fair enough, but why? What defense do you have to make that comparison. It can’t be simply that there are (possibly) some objective facts used in there somewhere, Eugenics had that as well. So what is it? What reason do you have to claim this secular system is superior?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    You don’t seem to offer any evidence or reasoning to support this argument.



    Your statement was:





    This would make sense if you could provide a single reference where 'abad was used in Hebrew to mean "labour" as a noun.



    I offered 15.



    Given that I offered 15 times the required evidence level you requested, we can agree that my initial argument now “makes sense” according to your standard right?



    You asked for the use of the word as a noun, and I offered it. Is that sufficient or are we going to shift the goal posts a bit?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I’m assuming you were replying to sections as you read them and wrote this before consulting the end of my response.





    I think the point missed initially that gave you the trouble was that you saw the link for the “Root Form” of the word without explanation of what that meant. Root words in Hebrew (as in English) can become verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc. depending on what other prefixes and suffixes we add to them.





    In the text we were looking at, Strong’s was pointing out the root of the word was ‘abad, not that the word, in its entirety was ‘abad.



    In the verse under discussion, specific word used was,



    תַּעֲבֹדוּ



    This word has the possessive, plural form of: abodeh. Abodeh is the root abad with a definitive article in front of it. Definitive articles in front of verbs both in English and Hebrew make them nouns. The business, the hunt, the service, etc.

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H5656&t=KJV



    You can see that with a variety of prefixes and suffixes that ‘abad fills in as verb, noun, and adjective.

    http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strong...n&isindex=5647





    IE the same noun you point out here is in the verse you reference. It becomes increasingly difficult to hold the distinction point you are offering given your statements that it “would make sense if had been used as a verb” and “that noun is abodeh,” etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I think you might need to reread my response. I didn’t indicate that you claimed the most logical translation was that they owned a verb. Rather, you attempted to dismiss the evidence offered by saying “you can’t possess a verb” in post 31.



    That objection seems to fall by the wayside given both the evidence on Hebrew sentence structure offered and the clarification on the root vs word offered in the last post.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Again, this is simply rehashing an earlier claim without additional evidence does little to move the debate forward.



    You made this claim in post 31 absent any evidence to support it. (So at the very least please support or retract that claim, Challenge to support a claim.)



    Further, you argument was rebutted in post 32. Specifically, rebutted with evidence.





    Returning to the text at hand, the verb's proper definition fits my explanation more closely than yours. In fact, your take would seem to indicate that the Bible is incorrectly asserting ownership of a verb (which you believe to be incorrect). Rather, it is noting that the service (labor) done for others is a possession through inheritance. If the verse was, as you state, referring back to the object of the last verse (something btw not done in biblical Hebrew, nor English until the 1200s) then the word 'achuzzah would not be present. That is a clarifying word in this context nothing that the following word, 'abad is a possession. It makes no sense, and rather should have been the pronoun 'el-leh. The lack of th at pronoun clearly indicates that no such "call back" was being offered. Rather, the possession in question is the word in position three, 'abad, which fits the more appropriate Hebrew grammar structure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    That is a bit of a stretch of that reading. Especially given the other translations of the text as:





    31 If thou have a servant, entreat him as a brother: for thou hast need of him, as of thine own soul: if thou entreat him evil, and he run from thee, which way wilt thou go to seek him?

    [Septuagint Bible w/Aprocrypha]





    31If you have a servant, treat him as yourself; For as your own soul will you have need of him: If you treat him ill, and he depart and run away, Which way will you go to seek him?

    [World English Bible]



    The more accurate translation, given the Greek and Latin http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/sir033.htm, is that it is saying if you have even a single slave. There is nothing in either the Greek or Latin that limits the principle to a single slave. Rather, it uses the singular version of the noun for servant or slave, which in Greek also meant the indeterminate case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns). IE, if they were to ask how many rats (we use the plural case) are in a closed box, they would literally say, “how many rat are in the box?”



    We can also see this in that none of the commentaries on Sirach reference any kind of limitation in the sense you seem to read it. https://www.studylight.org/commentar...sirach-33.html

    By your reasoning the entire Old Testament is applying to just the case where you have a single slave because the Hebrew is using the singular case of the noun as well.



    Do you have any structural evidence or scholarly commentary that supports your argument?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    There are three relevant points here.

    1) The original claim was made by you in the OP: “To address slavery in the bible from a moral perspective, it is defined here as: "owning a person as property".”

    Thus it was the initial claim, there are literally no other posts before it. So… Please support or retract that the verse actually refers to the person, rather than you read it as referring to the person. Challenge to support a claim.





    2) In post 23 I use the term “rather than labor” as an example of another criteria of something that could be owned, not as a separate claim.



    3) That Hebrews were only allowed to own the fruits of the land and of property was already supported in post 32 (specifically in the discussion in Kiddushin) and post 39 (discussion about non-movables).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #137
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think you are missing the basic nature of language. Text is simply a series of markings communicating language, the meaning of that language is something that is inferred, that is literally what language is. The markings themselves have no intent, they don't have a desire to communicate something. Language, as a fundamental concept is something that you infer.
    As I already said, I'm done playing games with you, Squatch. We're talking about what's clearly written in the bible - it's not an interpretation. Show me a single widely-published actual bible which is available to us regular folks that says what you claim the scholars are saying (clearly and without ambiguity that owning slaves means owning labour, not people), and maybe it would have more weight. As it stands, nearly every single version of the bible currently available has specific instructions for how to buy and sell people and that they are property. All you're saying boils down to nothing more than the ridiculous claim that all available versions of the bible are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Just as with our disagreement earlier, it isn't sufficient for us to simply assert two different readings of a definition at each other. We need to consult outside experts and sources.
    No, the fact that there exist the different readings (oddly enough, all widely-published bibles seem to only show one of those readings...) itself proves that the bible fails as a moral guide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Absolutely, which is why we should follow its example
    A "perfect moral guide" that has to rely on fallible interpretations in order to be followed correctly is no such thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, if it is your contention that the text implies that specific relationship, you need to offer direct support.
    The support of a relationship where people are sold, bought, and inherited as property is the text which explains that people are sold, bought, and inherited as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You need to explain why the sentence structure, or word meaning actually means what you think it does.
    Let's look at some examples:
    "You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (NIV)
    "You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property." (ESV)
    "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession." (KJV)
    "You may also buy from resident aliens who live among you and their families who are with you, whom they fathered in your land. They may become your property." (ISV)

    Commentaries:
    "Besides the surrounding nations, the Hebrews are also permitted to obtain their slaves from those strangers who have taken up their abode in the Holy Land."
    "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property."
    "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted."
    "Foreign slaves among the Jews did not have the same rights as Hebrew slaves sold into servitude because of debt; they could be held as slaves for life"
    "That is, they may appropriate them to themselves, as their personal property"

    Again, it's not "what I think it means". Stop this straw-man nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not being obstinate here, it is important because you are coming to a different conclusion than the vast, vast bulk of professional experts in this field.
    Again, stop this straw-man nonsense. I'm not coming to the conclusion. It's literally what the text says, and the commentaries say the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    "You shall get the things you acquire from what comes out of the families and what they have produced on your land shall be your possession."
    Yes, and that which is acquired is people, as is supported by all widely-published translations as well as the commentaries. You have even said yourself that slaves are what is acquired.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is what transliteration means. It means simply converting a text, letter for letter, rather than translating it via context. You simply read it without context or meaning rather than doing a deeper dive of what is meant and conveyed in the text.
    I'm honestly at a loss as to how you could take "reading the text and citing it verbatim" to mean that I'm transliterating it. Please, please, look up the definition of "transliteration", because you have absolutely butchered its meaning here in order to make a fairly useless argument.
    Again, I'm not transliterating anything - I'm taking what the actual bible actually says, in multiple translations, and citing it, as well as commentaries on what it actually says, verbatim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Hence why you are holding onto an interpretation that essentially only southern planters have held in the last 3000 years.
    Stop this "interpretation" nonsense - it's a pathetic straw-man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Every other available serious source has come to a different conclusion.
    Again, show me a single widely-published actual bible which is available to us regular folks that says what you claim the scholars are saying (clearly and without ambiguity that owning slaves means owning labour, not people), and maybe it would have more weight. As it stands, nearly every single version of the bible currently available has specific instructions for how to buy and sell people and that they are property. All you're saying boils down to nothing more than the ridiculous claim that all available versions of the bible are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is your interpretation of the meaning.
    Nope, it's what the text says verbatim, and what the commentaries agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is an interpretation a majority of scholars don't share with you, as I've shown. It is a reading that doesn't comport with the understanding of the primary reference materials on the application of these verses. It is an interpretation that is at odds with the understanding of those who actually read Biblical Hebrew for a living as I've linked.
    And yet there isn't a single recognizable/widely-available bible being published which supports what you claim. Funny that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So it is, in its very essence, your thinking on the meaning.
    Stop this straw-man nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I understand you might find that demeaning, I don't mean to personally demean you of course, but I need to highlight that you are maintaining an understanding of the verse that is at odd with every mainstream scholar presented in this thread and virtually every commentary that addresses the subject.
    I completely understand why you keep trying to conjure this situation of it's just little old me all alone being at odds with the entire world of scholars, but dude, seriously, this is starting to get sad. I've already repeatedly provided main-stream scholar commentaries which support the plain-text readings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Language is, at best, an imperfect conveyance for meaning which is why people have misunderstandings all the time.
    No, the differences in understanding here have come not as a result of the language, but as a result of changes in the moral positions held by society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    a)Israelites, b) professional rabbis, c) the cannon law of Israel and Judaism, d)Old Testament scholars
    From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery):
    "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery"
    "The original Israelite slavery laws found in the Hebrew Bible bear some resemblance to the 18th century BCE slavery laws of Hammurabi."
    "In the modern era, when the abolitionist movement sought to outlaw slavery, supporters of slavery used the laws to provide religious justification for the practice of slavery."
    "The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children"
    "20th century scholars such as Solomon Zeitlin and Ephraim Urbach, examined Jewish slave-ownership practices more critically, and their historical accounts generally conclude that Jews did permanently own Jewish slaves, and that Jewish slave-owners were no more compassionate than other slave owners of antiquity."
    "Most slaves owned by Israelites were non-Hebrew, and scholars are not certain what percentage of slaves were Hebrew: one scholar says that Israelites rarely owned Hebrew slaves after the Maccabean era, although it is certain that Israelites owned Hebrew slaves during the time of the Babylonian exile. Another scholar suggests that Israelites continued to own Hebrew slaves through the Middle Ages, but that the Biblical rules were ignored, and Hebrew slaves were treated the same as non-Hebrews."
    "in the Talmud's slavery laws [...] the automatic release of Jewish slaves after six years is replaced by indefinite slavery"
    "the Talmud explicitly prohibits the freeing of a non-Jewish slave, which was stricter that the biblical law which was silent on the issue, and simply permitted slaves to be owned indefinitely"
    "Jewish slaves were often treated as property; for example, they were not allowed to be counted towards the quorum, equal to 10 men, needed for public worship."
    "20th century scholars such as Solomon Zeitlin and Ephraim Urbach, examined Jewish slave-ownership practices more critically, and their historical accounts generally conclude that Jews did permanently own Jewish slaves, and that Jewish slave-owners were no more compassionate than other slave owners of antiquity."
    "Jews participated to some extent in slave trading during the Middle Ages. Jews were the chief traders in the segment of Christian slaves at some epochs and played a significant role in the slave trade in some regions."
    "During the Middle Ages, Jews acted as slave-traders in Slavonia, North Africa, Baltic States, Central and Eastern Europe, Spain and Portugal, and Mallorca"
    "Jewish participation in the slave trade was recorded as beginning in the 5th century, when Pope Gelasius permitted Jews to introduce slaves from Gaul into Italy, on the condition that they were non-Christian. In the 8th century, Charlemagne explicitly allowed Jews to act as intermediaries in the slave trade. In the 10th century, Spanish Jews traded in Slavonian slaves, whom the Caliphs of Andalusia purchased to form their bodyguards. In Bohemia, Jews purchased these Slavonian slaves for exportation to Spain and the west of Europe. William the Conqueror brought Jewish slave-traders with him from Rouen to England in 1066."
    "Jews participated in the European colonization of the Americas, and owned slaves in Latin America and the Caribbean, most notably in Brazil and Suriname, but also in Barbados and Jamaica. Especially in Suriname, Jews owned many large plantations."
    "The Jews of Algiers were frequent purchasers of Christian slaves from Barbary corsairs."
    "Jews and descendants of Jews participated in the slave trade on both sides of the Atlantic, in the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal on the eastern side, and in Brazil, Caribbean, and North America on the west side."
    "Jewish participation in the Atlantic slave trade increased through the 17th century because Spain and Portugal maintained a dominant role in the Atlantic trade and peaked in the early 18th century"
    "During the 19th century, some Jews owned some cotton plantations in the southern United States."
    "Jews owned some of the best plantations in the river valley of Pernambuco, and some Jews were among the leading slave traders in the colony."
    "The Jews of Suriname were the largest slave-holders in the region."
    "The majority of buyers at slave auctions in the Brazil and the Dutch colonies were Jews."
    "American mainland colonial Jews imported slaves from Africa at a rate proportionate to the general population. As slave sellers, their role was more marginal, although their involvement in the Brazilian and Caribbean trade is believed to be considerably more significant."
    "Jews conformed to the prevailing patterns of slave ownership in the South, and were not significantly different from other slave owners in their treatment of slaves."
    "Jewish slave owners freed their black slaves at about the same rate as non-Jewish slave owners. Jewish slave owners sometimes bequeathed slaves to their children in their wills."

    Again, I fully understand why you're trying so hard to invent this crazy situation where I'm just sooooo way out there with what you keep straw-manning as "my interpretation" (which is actually just simple and clear plain-text reading supported by scholar comments) and that nobody - absolutely nobody! - else in the whole wide world ever reached the same conclusion from simple, plain-text readings of simple, clear text.

    Unfortunately, Israelites, professional rabbis, Jewish laws, biblical scholars, and historians agree that there is clear and simple support for slavery in both the biblical and Talmudic texts, and that slavery was practiced by Jews just like everyone else throughout history.

    So again, I'm done playing games with you, Squatch. You've failed to provide convincing support for your claim that the slavery, as depicted in the bible and other Hebrew texts, and as practiced by Hebrews historically, is anything other than owning people as property, as both our sources define it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is intellectually dishonest to claim that this is what I wrote, and frankly, rather lazy.
    I didn't claim that was what you wrote. I clearly stated that multiple sources - even the ones you provided - support that a slave is a person who is owned. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that I was claiming that was what you wrote.
    You flat-out admit that slaves were what was being obtained. And by every single definition - even by your very own sources which you provided in your attempt to shift focus onto the red herring of "chattel" slavery - a slave is a person who is owned as property, and the practice of slavery is where people are owned as property. Therefore, people are being obtained as property, which is sanctioned by the bible, as stated in #1, and is supported by the text, scholar commentaries, and vast amounts of historical data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).
    The 6-year term only applies to male Hebrew slaves, and even then there's a loop-hole by which a male Hebrew slave can become permanent property. The bible clearly allows for permanent ownership of non-Hebrew slaves, female Hebrew slaves, and any children of non-Hebrew slaves born into slavery.
    Again, as multiple scholar commentaries support, people are bought and sold as slaves, and slaves are considered to be inheritable property. Further, the Jews saw no problem with applying their religiously-sanctioned slavery in the same way that everyone else did during the American slave-trade, so they obviously did not see the distinction which you are arguing here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I get that you claim that, but you haven't supported it except by a bare assertion fallacy. You need to support that the intent of the authors was to imply that message rather than just that you infer it. Importantly, you need to offer a rebuttal to the consensus opinion voiced in the post above.
    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).
    ibid.
    "Hebrews are also permitted to obtain their slaves from those strangers who have taken up their abode in the Holy Land."
    "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property."
    "that one of the nations that lies with a Canaanitish woman, and begets a son of her, he may be bought for a servant; and so if a Canaanitish man lies with one of the nations, and begets a son of her, he may also be bought for a servant"
    "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom Genesis 17:12. Such slaves might be captives taken in war (Numbers 31:6 following; Deuteronomy 20:14), or those consigned to slavery for their crimes, or those purchased of foreign slave-dealers."
    Incidentally, it should be pointed out that commentary on Genesis 17:12 also supports that people were obtained a slaves and were bought and sold as property:
    "Bough with money of any stranger: these were of two sorts.
    1. Children, who being entirely his possession, and having not understanding to discern, nor will to choose or refuse, were to be circumcised.
    2. Grown persons, who were not to be compelled to be circumcised, but if they refused it, were not to be permitted to dwell in his family, lest they should infect others, but were to be sold to strangers" -1. specifically indicates that the children of the sojourners are possessions, and 2. specifically allows for the re-sale of slaves.

    Again, that which was obtained is slaves, as per your own admission. And again, as per your own sources, slaves are people that are owned as property. So, people are obtained and owned as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So the author, a respected expert in Biblical literature is so dumb, that he contradicted himself, but future, a random internet debater is wiser? That doesn't seem a bit presumptious of you?
    Nothing is presumed. I clearly indicated the contradiction of saying, literally, "slaves were acquired", and then saying that people - whish slaves are - weren't acquired.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    After all, we are "acquiring employees" that must mean in the simple text reading that the employee is owned by the new firm right? That meets your definition of slavery after all.
    LOL. Sure thing dude, but I think even a child can understand the difference when someone says they hired an employee by using the words "acquire employees", and when someone says a slave (a person who is property) is sold/purchased by using "acquire slaves".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Or perhaps, just perhaps, there is a bit more to that given context? Perhaps we could read text with a tad bit more sophistication?
    Nope, sorry. As supported by the plain and simple text, scholar commentaries, and historical data, slaves (people owned as property) were bought, sold, and inherited as property, as explicitly sanctioned in the bible and other Hebrew texts. No amount of "sophistication" - if that's what you want to call it, more like sophistry - can refute the fact that the bible clearly sanctions slavery, the fact that - just as importantly - the bible fails to clearly oppose it, and the fact that scholar commentaries and historians agree with these very simple conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except that isn't what the support said. While owners could well choose to manumit slaves (which is in contrast to slavery as you define it, if you own a person they are a slave forever, it is part of their nature), the support offered in several posts was that the slave owner was required to manumit slaves in a large set of circumstances. That does contradict your claim that the Bible sanctions permanent slavery.
    I can't believe you're still trying to argue this. Look, it's really simple: even if the bible truly offers the many ways in which a slave could go free, it still allows for the possibility of and sanctions permanent ownership. Two very simple examples are female Hebrew slaves, and male Hebrew slaves who are given wives while enslaved and choose to stay with their wives. By even allowing the possibility of permanent ownership, the bible is santioning permanent ownership.
    Further, it has already been supported that Jewish laws also explicitly allow for permanent ownership:
    "non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children"
    "in the Talmud's slavery laws [...] the automatic release of Jewish slaves after six years is replaced by indefinite slavery"
    "historical accounts generally conclude that Jews did permanently own Jewish slaves"
    "the Talmud explicitly prohibits the freeing of a non-Jewish slave, which was stricter that the biblical law which was silent on the issue, and simply permitted slaves to be owned indefinitely"


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A fugitive slave must not be turned over to his master. (Deut. 23:16).
    Multiple commentaries disprove this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ben Sira adds: "If thou treat him ill and he proceeds to run away, in what way shalt thou find him?" IE mistreatment is the presumed reason for a slave escaping, thus his return to his master is forbidden. (Ecclus. 33:31).
    Multiple commentaries prove that your linking of Ecclus. 33:31 with Deut. 23:15 is doesn't support a universal "escape to get free" clause.
    "The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land." -The anti-return clause is in cases where slaves flee from foreign, pagan masters outside the holy land into the holy land. Slaves in the holy land of non-foreign, non-pagan, Israelites do not fall under this case.
    "evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people" -Not applicable to slaves of Israelites in Israel.
    "This shows plainly that the passage is not to be understood of the servants of the Israelites their brethren, but of aliens and strangers; he is said to be escaped, and to be allowed to dwell among them, which the servant of an Israelite was supposed to do before." -Again, not applicable to slaves of Israelites.
    "The reference is to a foreign slave who had fled from the harsh treatment of his master to seek refuge in Israel" -Again, not applicable to slaves of Israelites in Israel.
    "Of the servants of strangers, because it follows, Deu 23:16, he shall dwell with thee, even among you, which shows that he had dwelt with and belonged to another people" -Again, slaves that belonged to foreigners, not slaves of Israelites in Israel.
    "Jewish writers generally understand it of the servants of idolaters" -Again, not slaves of Israelites.
    "Aben Ezra interprets this of a servant not an Israelite, who, in time of war, flees from his master, not an Israelite also, unto the camp of Israel" -Again, non-Israelite slaves of non-Israelites who are not in Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The workload of a slave should never exceed his physical strength, violation of this rule can lead to manumission. (Ecclus. 33:28–29).
    Again, your claim that violation of the rule to not exceed the slave's physical strength necessarily leads to manumission is just an assertion. Ecclus does not contain any explicit requirement for a slave owner to manumit their slave for any reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There is additional clarification on just how slavery in Ancient Israel differed not only from its neighbors, but from the concept of slavery in other societies. IE how it was not chattel slavery.
    Sure thing, dude. Historians agree that Jews had no problem engaging in the same kinds of slavery which were practiced elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As Stefan Molyneaux is fond of saying, "Not an argument." It is also a good example of what happens when someone without training ignore experts in the field. Do you have a coherent set of reasons as to why this verse does not mean what Hebrew scholars think it means?
    That's why the argument came after that comment. Here it is again:
    "So since the food is also intended for the livestock and wild animals mentioned in the same sentence as the slaves, that means the "agrarian economy" recognized animals as earning income? Wow, quite the forward-thinking moral guide, I must say."

    Again, trying to say that Lev. 25:6-7 is intended as ensuring income for slaves fails because it clearly refers to the left-over food being intended as food, not income, for everyone - [B]including[B/] the slave-owner's livestock, and also the wild animals living on the land. If Lev. 25:6-7 was explicitly intended as ensuring income for slaves, then it's also ensuring income for cattle and wild animals, LOL!

    Also, commentaries support this, and not your ridiculous interpretation:
    "should be the meat or food on which they should live that year" -Again, food for everyone to live off, not income.
    "That is, it shall serve as your food, but you must not trade with it, or store it up. Hence, during the second Temple the produce of the sabbatical year could only be used for direct consumption, and was not allowed to be converted first into other articles and then used." -Again, the food was directly consumed as food, and was not income which could be converted and used.
    "the produce during the year of rest. Instead of storing it as in each of the six years, they were only to gather it from time to time when needed for food" -Again, food as required by those who need food to live (people and animals), not income.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It simply says that punishment isn't automatic if the slave dies after a few days because it isn't presumed to be the master's fault.
    No, it's still the master's fault, but he isn't punished because it's presumed (but not proved or provable) that the master didn't intend to kill his slave.
    "it must be presumed not to have been intended"
    "presumed not to have done this purposely and maliciously"
    "he did not intend to kill him, but only to correct him"
    "he did not smite his servant with an intention to kill him"

    So, again, we're talking about a slave who dies as a result of being smited (smote?) by his master, and the master not being punished simply because the slave took time to die. It's still recognised that the master caused the death of the slave, but they just assume that he didn't really mean to kill his slave. Nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As with our other definitional discussion, this is an area where you are kind of standing on your own against the bulk of opinion here and from the evidence. As I noted before, if you are going to maintain that the only correct use of the term "slavery" is referring to the situation where people are chattel, that is fine, but you run into a lot of problems because that isn't how the word is used by others, especially translators. Slavery has a much broader context and set of scenarios.
    LOL, dude, I already proved - using only your sources, no less - that the definition of slavery according to the OP is perfectly fine. The OP clearly defines slavery, the definition has been clear for you since the very beginning, and multiple sources, both mine and yours, support the use of this definition. If you want to discuss differences in various forms of slavery, feel free to start another thread on that, mmkay?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Come on, it was in your quote within post 38!
    If you don't provide support for where the bible says that slave-owners were not allowed to beat their slaves randomly, then I take it you retract your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except that is literally what the verse says, if you give them too much work, they will leave slavery (which is seen as a valid option since the master is prevented from going to return them to slavery). I thought you were all into what it literally says?
    Again, where does it explicitly state that there's a causal relationship between the slave being given too much work and as a result being allowed to leave slavery?
    And again, the anti-return clause does not apply to slaves of Israelites in Israel, as supported by multiple commentaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The section he is referencing here is the understanding of Deut. 23:16 which prohibits the return of runaway slaves.
    Sure thing, dude. Again, nowhere does it provide an explicit clause of manumission, and anti-return has already been supported by commentaries as not applicable to all kinds of slaves universally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In a system of permanent slavery, why would there be a discussion about a slave becoming free?
    I don't know - good question. But that's not what Sirach is saying. It's saying that a slave will seek freedom, not become free.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not just escaping, not just being a fugitive, but getting "liberty?"
    Again, nothing in Sirach states that a slave gets liberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a concept that doesn't exist in the context of the concept of slavery you are peddling.
    Again, with this staw-man! I'm not peddling any concept other than what is supported by both our sources as the definition of slavery, and what is supported as being sanctioned in the bible by multiple commentaries and historical records.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It only makes sense if there was recognition that slaves could, in fact, become free.
    No, it doesn't. There have always been slaves everywhere in history who have sought freedom. Your argument amount to nothing more than the ridiculous claim that, in a system where the slaves don't see any avenue for their slave-owners - or the society enslaving them - to officially release them, they just roll over and say "Bummer, I guess I'm just going to continue being a slave and never think about trying to get free". It's just nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It would be like saying, "if you make abortion completely illegal, and crack down on anyone trying, people will go to their doctors to get legal abortions."
    Duh, that's why nobody's saying that, and neither is the bible - it's saying that slaves are seeking freedom, not that they are trying to persuade their slave-owners to manumit them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You cannot have both a system that does not recognize manumission (as you claim) and says slaves might try to get manumitted.
    Double-Duh! They're not trying to get manumitted. They're seeking freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Begging the question fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...g_the_Question) You can't use your conclusion to support your own premise. Is there a single other case of property being judged to have acted wickedly or had intent?
    I need you to really stop and think carefully about this now, and how ridiculous your line of argumentation is.
    You asked a simple question: "When is 'property' judged to have acted wickedly or had intent?"
    I gave you a simple answer: "When the property is a slave".
    You accept that the North American slave trade had cases of slave-owners treating their slaves as property. So based on your claim, that means you also believe that it was not possible for those slave-owners to judge their slaves as having acted wickedly and punish them. Simply mind-boggling.

    So, again: an example where the owner of property judges their property to have acted wickedly is in cases where slaves are property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Right, all of our enlightened murdering of fetuses and genocides. Sure glad we've moved past such barbarism into new barbarism.
    So, you'd rather have the old barbarism than our current situation? Good to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Back to the actual point, this is also "not an argument."
    Right, I forgot, you are an amoral robot who denies holding any moral positions whatsoever (even though you just freely expressed one with regards to abortion).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The verse referenced argues that they should be treated as brothers. Does that affirm their humanity or not?
    No, it only indicates an irrational contradiction in the text. Again, if you claim that the way slaves are treated is a way of affirming someone's humanity, then you must also believe that using racks and tortures and making fetters heavy is also a valid way of affirming someone's humanity. Nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If it does, this shows that the concept depicted here violates your concept of people as chattel. People as property do not retain their humanity, they are stripped of it to become slaves.
    No, their humanity is violated by those enslaving them and subjecting them to forced labour, punishing them with physical beatings, racks, torture, and heavy chains. I never stated that they are stripped of humanity - I don't even know what that means. Nice try, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No kidding, and? Neither is a Papal dictate to Catholics, or a Pastor's sermon, does that mean they aren't relevant?
    I'm just pointing our the contradiction in your appeal, as a Protestant, to a book which isn't regocnized as authoritative - even to Jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) IE we are talking about people being owned as chattel right?
    LOL. Here we go again. No need for an "IE: chattel". The OP's definition has been abundantly clear from the very beginning, and it is supported by both of our sources as valid. So, again, we're talking about owning people as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your second point is actually not quite correct. There are examples of slaves purchasing their freedom
    Ok, thanks for confirming that there are examples of slaves purchasing their freedom in America.
    Look, we all know about the Reverse Underground Railroad. The fact that there were people in pro-slavery states which were going to free states and kidnapping free slaves to bring back and sell doesn't change the fact that it was possible for slaves to purchase their own freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    3) I'm really surprised you think the Bible doesn't address slaves purchasing their freedom
    Indentured servants paying their debts, sure, but that is quite different from the permanent pagan slaves kept by Israelites, female Hebrew slaves, and Hebrew slaves who started out as indentured servants but chose to remain with their enslaved families, and then became permanent slaves. These categories had no ability to purchase their freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).
    Again, different rules for permanent slaves vs. indentured servants. Incidentally, a similar situation existed in America, with indentured servants being treated differently than permanent slaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In Leviticus 25, a slave is guaranteed his own property and earnings, and is able to redeem himself, or be redeemed by his family.
    Again, not available to all. Lev. 25 specifically makes the distinction that if a Hebrew slave is bought by a non-Hebrew, his family must make every attempt to redeem him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Deut 24 requires the payment of wages and allows slaves to collect left over crops (those not collected on the first pass, the “gleanings”) for their own use.
    Deut. 24:12 refers to hired workers being paid, and not owned or inherited slaves. Further, while the chapter does indicated that left-overs are not to be gleaned by the land-owner, this is not intended for the owner's slaves. It specifically refers to "the stranger, the fatherless, the widow", and makes no mention of slaves or servants. It's clearly just charity, and not wages, as you claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    II Sam. 9:10; 16:4; 19:18, 30; cf. I Sam. 9:8 Slaves owning property and receiving wages.
    These are not specific rules explaining how all slaves must be able to own property and receive wages. Nice try. Also, commentary from Deut. 15:18 confirms that your claim that slaves received wages is simply false:
    "sent out of their servitude, wherein they had received no wages"
    "his service was more advantageous to you, being both without wages and for a length of time"
    "since a hired servant a man is obliged to pay him wages for his work, besides his food, whereas a bondservant received no wages"
    "because he served thee upon better terms, both without wages, which hired servants require, and for a longer time, even for six years"

    Incidentally, as one Jewish historian points out: "One of the few rules that distinguished between Jewish and non-Jewish slaves regarded found property: items found by Jewish slaves were owned by the slave, but items found by a non-Jewish slave belonged to the slave owner." (Hezser p.46)

    So again, no wages and no property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What do you think he means when he says "liberty?"
    Again, where does it say that the slave is freed by his master?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, that is why we call them "Non-Slave States."
    Not sure how this is a response - you've obviously misinterpreted my use of "states" as the plural noun, when I was using the verb. To clarify: "All that the anti-return law says (states) is that someone else can't return a slave to their master."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think you dramatically overstate your case here. You offered a single pastor from a single church's personal website.
    I offered a pastor's view which comports with multiple scholar commentaries. You really like to try and misrepresent/belittle the support offered to refute your claims, don't you? While I fully understand why you need to do this, it's not winning you any points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That makes referencing him an appeal to authority fallacy.
    Which is why I also provided scholar commentaries, duh. By offering actual authorities which agree with what the pastor says, it's not a fallacious appeal to authority at all, but just a regular valid appeal to authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) The first commentary is, of course, talking about foreigners, because Israelites are referred to in a completely different section of the law code.
    Right, they're referred to in a section of the law code which doesn't provide them with an anti-return clause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Can you support that this commentary specifically only means people who have escaped from foreign captivity as opposed to foreigners working in Israel?
    Here's the full sentence, in case the first part wasn't clear enough:
    "This shows plainly that the passage is not to be understood of the servants of the Israelites their brethren, but of aliens and strangers; he is said to be escaped, and to be allowed to dwell among them, which the servant of an Israelite was supposed to do before."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) What does Barnes' commentary here have to do with your claim? He is saying that the specific example he is referencing earlier in his commentary is about a slave fleeing from an unjust master. Did you read the commentary?
    Of course I did. By specifically referring to pagan masters and slaves fleeing to the holy land, Barnes clearly supports the difference. Again:
    "The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land." -The anti-return clause is in cases where foreign slaves flee from foreign, pagan masters. Slaves of non-foreign, non-pagan, Israelites do not fall under this case.
    Damn that reading thing sure does help, don't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    3) Those are some massive elipses you added in there to cut out all the relevant text.
    They are pretty, aren't they?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Moreover, you cherry picked your sample there. You'll notice that Gill, and the Geneva study bible do not comport with your reading.
    Really? Let's take a look at Gill again:
    "Jewish writers generally understand it of the servants of idolaters" -Again, not slaves of Israelites.
    "Aben Ezra interprets this of a servant not an Israelite, who, in time of war, flees from his master, not an Israelite also, unto the camp of Israel" -Again, non-Israelite slaves of non-Israelites who are not in Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What's more, neither does Wright's commentary (https://books.google.com/books?id=664XW9PPpAgC), D.J.A. Clines' work, Social Responsibility In The Old Testament, Glenn Miller's commentary offers an indepth rebuttal of your exact claim (http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html). As does renowned biblical scholar David Clines here (https://www.academia.edu/3819039/Rec...ament_Theology)
    Finally, what is important here, is that, as I showed in post 32, the authors of the text didn't consider it to be so limited, nor did the legal jurists for next 3 millenia.
    "Moreover", and a "what's more"?? You do spoil me, Squatch!
    Unfortunately, I'm seeing a lot of claiming and linking, but no supporting or citing.

    In any case, I've alredy provided commentaries which support the conclusion. But just for fun here are some more:
    "Israel to provide asylum for the foreign escaped slave. The refugee slave referred to had evidently come from a foreign land. Otherwise there would have been legal complications, since slaves were a valued possession." -Thompson
    "The land of Israel is here made a sanctuary, or city of refuge, for servants that were wronged and abused by their masters, and fled thither for shelter from the neighbouring countries." -Henry
    "The servant — Of such as belonged to the Canaanites, or other neighbouring nations" -Wesley

    Please also note that none of these commentaries are from atheists who are desperately trying to discredit the Bible - each was written by a faithful believer. The fact that their commentary supports a conclusion which is less favourable proves that their conclusions have integrity. A biased person upholds his bias; he doesn't hand ammo to the other side. Bottom line: Deut. 23:15-16 doesn't refer to slaves of Israelites being freed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well no, two commentaries made statements you, future, interpretted as meaning that.
    Sure thing, dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'll add to the above that there are a host of other conditions that require manumission
    Most of these have already been refuted or indicated as irrelevant, but there's one worth responding to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A slave may not be sold to a non-Jew.
    Unfortunately, this is completely contradicted by Lev. 25:47, which clearly indicates that there is nothing wrong with non-Israelites buying Israelites.

  20. #138
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Support or retract that these verses are describing a scenario where a person is owned as chattel.
    LOL - again with the chattel nonsense. In any case, the fact that the bible describes ownership of people has already been supported by multiple commentaries. Further, your own admission supports this. You already agreed that that which is acquired is a slave, and your own sources define a slave as someone who is owned as property. That is, of course, you disagree with how the UN explains it:
    The United Nations deems slavery to be "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised" and slave as "a person in such condition or status"

    Again, being able to buy, sell, and inherit people, which the bible clearly sanctions, are all prime examples of powers of ownership.

    I don't see a response to this:
    "I never made an argument that the slaves aren't human beings. Slaves are human beings which are owned as property. The OP's definition is quite clear on this: "owning a person as property", so it's odd that you would miss this and make the straw-man that my argument is they're not human beings. Since the slave is what is bought and sold, passed on as inheritance, beaten, forced to work, etc., the slave is what is owned. The slave is a person who is owned."

    So can you confirm that you understand my argument is not that slaves are property and not human beings, but that slaves are human beings which are treated as property, as supported by the OP's definition as well as both our sources?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Careful, you are losing a lot of the point by just saying 'you hire someone.'
    Wow, do you really think so? Is it not clear enough that when someone says they "hired a person", it means they spoke with the person, interviewed the person, discovered what the person can and can't do and how much the person would like to be paid to do it, decided to enter into a legally-binding contract with the person, and then paid the person after the person had done what the person was hired to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So when I contract with them, I am contracting for the service
    Yes, you are contracting with THE PERSON, not the labour. You try to make it sound as if the person isn't involved in any way, and he's just sitting there while everything is happening between the client and the labour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your labor contract doesn't say "we will exchange wages for Dave"
    No duh, really??!? Could that be because the contract actually says that we will pay Dave (the person) in exchange for services provided by Dave (the person)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is why subcontracting is a thing btw.
    No, it's not, btw. It's because the contracts allow companies to get things done without having to take someone on as a full-fledged employee.

    Bottom line: the point is that, just like with legally-binding contracts between people where the context of the contract is as a relationship between people and people are legally bound by it, purchasing a slave is where a relationship is created between two people, in this case, one person being recognized as having bought and therefore owning the other.

    Literally every passage which deals with any kind of slavery in the bible uses language which depicts a relationship between people:
    - fathers selling their daughters
    - slave-owners buying young women to give to their sons as wives
    - slave-owners giving slave-women to male Hebrews as wives
    - slave-owners passing their slaves on as inheritance to their children
    - Slave-owners beating or using racks and torture on their slaves
    ... the list goes on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which gets us back to our friend: 'achuzzah, which going way back you'll remember means the product or use of something.
    Really? Strong's shows this as defined as "something seized, i.e. a possession", coming from the passive particible form of the root verb 'achaz, meaning "to grasp, take hold, seize, take possession". So it literally means "that which is seized or possessed". I recall you tried to justify 'achuzzah to mean the product of something by refering to it being used for non-movable items such as land. Unfortunately, this just doesn't pass muster, as even a quick look at Strong's shows 'achuzzah being used for myriad objects which are owned or to which some right of ownership is applied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is why it is used in reference to a grave. You don't own a hole in the ground, you possess the hole by using it as a grave.
    And yet the verse you are referring to is in the context of someone being given a buryingplace as a posession. I don't know about you, but buying or being given a location where you will be able to store your body indefinitely after you are deceased kinda seems a lot like a principle of ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    but that Pharoah let them live on that land.
    Wait, you mean land that cannot actually be owned by anyone? Pharoah allowed land which he couldn't actually own to be given by Joseph to somebody else as a possession which can't actually be owned? The mind boggles...

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Or you can review our discussion of the word here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post555136
    I looked at that post, but didn't see much in the form of support that 'achuzza doesn't mean ownership.
    There is an interesting fragment, however, where you do use it to imply ownership of an object:
    "Thus we have no basis in this verse to say that it is implying their bodies, their souls, or their humanity is being inherited, only their ownership of their labor."

    Clearly, 'achuzzah is easily used to imply ownership - when it suits you, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    "yours to use" rather than "you own"
    These are both principles of ownership, dude. Let's say you buy a grill. You go to a store, you pay money for a grill, and it's now yours - you own it - it's your property. All examples of rights of ownership and transfer of ownership - so far so good? Then you take your grill (it's "yours") home, put some charcoal in your grill, fire up your grill, and produce some steaks. The grill you bought is yours and you are using your grill. All still examples of ownership - so far so good? Then, when the steaks are ready, you enjoy them, since you own the grill and also the steaks.

    Now replace:
    "grill" with "slave"
    "store" with "nations surrounding you"
    "charcoal" with "food/sustenance"
    "fire up" with "put to work"
    "steaks" with "crops"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Exactly my point.
    Right, so again, the land is the property of the Israelites who own it and have the right to lease it to others?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That sounds like a rent arrangement, not ownership. You can sublet an apartment you are renting, but not sell it. If you owned the home, you can sell it. If you are the property owner, you have a right to sell.
    So again, God grants them permanent ownership of the land, forever being passed down as a possession to their family, and they can only sell the land for a fixed period, at which point the land reverts to their possession as their permanent property, and even if they go poor and have to sell their land to feed themselves, they'll just get their land back automatically after that period passes? This is really starting to sound more like mandatory permanent ownership of property than a rent arrangement - especially since no rent is being paid to the one you claim is the true owner, indeed, any and all money paid for use of the land by anyone who doesn't own it goes to the folks who are forced to keep it as their permanent possession.
    It kind of reminds me of some trust-fund-type situations, where some heirs get their parents' vastly-profitable enterprise, only to find out that they have limited rights to what they can do with it so that they don't **** it up or get greedy and sell it for billions. Poor babies.

    In any case, it all comes down to effective principles of ownership. Buying, selling, and inheriting all fall under that category.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You ignored the bulk of my post
    Let's look again at the first line of that portion of your post:
    "Except, as pointed out (twice) that isn't what the commentaries say. They say that word slave refers to people not work, sure, but not that the people are owned as property."

    So I replied with commentaries which say just that:
    "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property." -"These", referring to people.
    "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted" -Slaves are the property.
    "their power over their slaves should exist not only until their death, but should continue in perpetual succession to their children; for this is the force of the expression, 'ye shall possess them for your children,' that the right of ownership should pass to their heir’s also" -Slaves are the possession, and the right of ownership over the slaves is inherited.

    Further, your statement is simply self-contradictory, since we've already defined slaves as people that are owned as property:
    "slave refers to people not work, sure, but not that the people are owned as property"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That interpretation requires us to ignore the totality of Hebrew social structures, the entire Exodus story, several specific verses listed above noting that the Israelites don't own factors of production, just the production, and the consensus of dozens of scholars linked in four different posts.
    Oh, here we go again. Crazy old me with my made-up scholar commentaries and Jewish historians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again you've adopted a relatively strained reading of those small bits of the commentaries you chose to review. Readings that are contrary to the rest of the commentary.
    Sigh, let's try again:
    "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property." -"These", referring to people.
    "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted" -Slaves are the property.
    "their power over their slaves should exist not only until their death, but should continue in perpetual succession to their children; for this is the force of the expression, 'ye shall possess them for your children,' that the right of ownership should pass to their heir’s also" -Slaves are the possession, and the right of ownership over the slaves is inherited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Absolute (remember Ellitcott has training as a lawyer) means that the relationship isn't subject to relevant restrictions.
    And the relationship is one of ownership, where people are held as property. That's what "may hold as their property" means, dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So yeah, out of foreign nations come slaves not subject to jubilee, no one has argued otherwise.
    And slaves are people that are owned as property, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Nothing you've offered says that they human beings themselves were owned.
    Well, you've already agreed multiple times that slaves are what is acquired, but for some reason keep demanding that people weren't actually owned, even though that's what slaes are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You keep demanding that we simply read things plain text, but you don't seem to offer any plain text commentaries that support your point.
    "And they shall be your possession. — These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property."
    "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted."

    I don't know how plainer it can get than that: a plain-text verse, and a plain-text explanation that it means people are property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So we get something that comes from those people rather than the people themselves.
    First, it comes from the group of people. Second, that which they get is slaves, right? And what were slaves? Oh, yeah: slaves are people who are owned as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Unless you can show why the Hebrew authors would have added all that additional wording to their sentences or show that the Hebrew subject/object/noun chain supports your conclusion, you are just making an unsupported assertion.
    Again, it all comes down to powers of ownership, which are clearly expressed in the verses where people are bought, sold, and inherited. Further, as repeatedly supported by commentaries, that which is obtained (slaves, people-property) comes from specific groups of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your rebuttal to the argument above doesn't involve sentence construction
    Nor does it need to. Commentaries support that people are obtained as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You haven't addressed that there this exact sentence construct is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to the products of something, not the thing itself. Notice the parallel structures in Lev 25:14 and Neh 10:31 where we are buying something from someone.
    I'm seeing a lot of claiming and linking, but no supporting or citing.

    Again, this is irrelevant, since you've already admitted that slaves are what is acquired.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Setting aside your limited understanding of the terminology used, you didn't respond to my point, "If this was such an obvious concept, you would think that you could find a single commentary somewhere by a respected academic that says it unambiguously. I've offered several that reject your hypothesis after all. Can't you offer one, single unambiguous support?"
    Already done. Here it is again, though:
    "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property." -"These", referring to people.
    "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted" -Slaves are the property.
    "their power over their slaves should exist not only until their death, but should continue in perpetual succession to their children; for this is the force of the expression, 'ye shall possess them for your children,' that the right of ownership should pass to their heir’s also" -Slaves are the possession, and the right of ownership over the slaves is inherited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why, after 8 pages haven't you been able to produce a single commentary or source that says what you claim, "the Bible says it is ok to own people as chattel."
    I see you've used direct quotation marks in reporting what I've claimed. Could you please indicate the specific post where I claimed this verbatim as you have quoted?

    Seriously, dude, enough with the chattel ridiculousness. This is like the 4th time you've tried to quote me as calling it chattel slavery, which I have never once done. I guess you must be having fun and all, trying to dishonestly misrepresent what I've clearly stated from the very beginning, but it's getting to be a bit much. To repeat once again for another time yet again: the OP's definition of slavery is quite clear, and also supported by both our sources, and the commentaries provided clearly explain how the bible sanctions this.

    You keep saying that I haven't been able to produce a single commentary, and I keep providing you with simple and clear comments. Here they are again:
    "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property." -"These", referring to people, are held as property.
    "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted" -Slaves are the property.
    "their power over their slaves should exist not only until their death, but should continue in perpetual succession to their children; for this is the force of the expression, 'ye shall possess them for your children,' that the right of ownership should pass to their heir’s also" -Slaves are the possession, and the right of ownership over the slaves is inherited.

    So, again, we have three comments which clearly refer to people as property, using clear words such as:
    - "these", when referring to people
    - "property", when referring to that which is owned
    - "slaves", when referring to people which are owned as property
    - "ownership", when referring to the owner-owned relationship

    Please explain for me how those comments are communicating something other than ownership of people as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It indicates that those with deeper knowledge of the subject understand there are distinctions that can be drawn. The Hebrew word is far broader than the English word for slave. The Hebrew word would cover hiring a workman, or having a job contract in exchange for tuition payments, or military enlistment, or even informally pledging to serve someone for a period of time.
    Cool story, dude. Say, did those folks get bought, sold, and inherited much?

    Again, you already agreed that slaves are what is acquired. Slaves are people owned as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are imparting your understanding of what slavery is onto Ellitcott. He doesn't say "the human being is transmissible as inheritance property" that is future's reading. It is an equally valid reading to say "the claim on their labor is transmissible as inheritance property" a concept we use today via share.
    Oh, so when Ellicott uses the words "these", "they", and "them" in the statement "These are not subject to the laws of jubile. They remain in perpetual serfdom unless they or their friends redeem them", he is then also referring to "the claims on their labour", and that those claims are in perpetual serfdom unless the claims are redeemed, not the slaves?

    Or when he makes the statement "These are to be purchased to do the necessary work", he's saying that claims on labour are purchased and are doing the necessary work, not slaves?

    Or when he makes the statement "These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property", he's saying that claims on labour, but not the Hebrews are property?

    Care to try that one again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    For Ellitcott to write that the authority is related to the labor, but then "forget" to clarify that inheritance relates to the person, not the labor is something a 6th Grade writer would do, not a noted academic and famous author.
    I agree. That's because he didn't first write that the authority is restricted to their labour and then forget about the when clarifying that the person is inherited. You've got it completely backwards.

    He first clarifies that:
    - slaves are to be bought from specific neighbouring nations to do work
    - Hebrews can also obtain slaves in Israel, provided they are not Israelites
    - those slaves, but not the Hebrews, are absolute property
    - the slaves are property which is transmissible as inheritance
    - the slaves remain in perpetual serfdom unless redeemed

    And only after all that does Ellicott put in the side note, with no actual source cited, about how the Second Temple authorities decided that the master's right is restricted to their labour, and he has no right to barter with them, misuse them, or put them to shame.

    So again, three whole verses explained at length with clear language explaining that slaves are bought, sold, and inherited, and at the very end an unsourced note about the Second Temple.

    Care to try that one again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Weren't you the one who said we just just take things at face value?
    Of course, I'm glad you agree. Oh, wait, I'm so sorry - is that what you were trying to do with the "claim on their labour" nonsense? Truly, the mind boggles...

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Exactly my point.
    Let's look again:
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Notice also in the sentence before:
    They shall be your bondmen for ever. — These are not subject to the laws of jubile. They remain in perpetual serfdom unless they or their friends redeem them, or their master has maimed any one of them. In case of injury the master is obliged to manumit him
    Ibid
    That he uses the term bondman, not chattel slave (a term he clearly understands)
    Again, the portion of your Ellicott quote in which the term bondman appears is not him using the term - it's a verbatim cite of the verse.

    So, when you quoted the Ellicott commentary, stating that he used the term bondman in that sentence, your point was exactly that he didn't use the term bondman?

    Care to try than one again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If an author who knew and used the term chattel slavery (which had its origins about 50 years before Ellitcott's writing) in other writings suddenly didn't use it here, that gives us a clue that he means something different.
    Okay, I see where you're going with this. So sure, he did indeed use the term "chattel". However, it's that first part which is a bit troublesome, about your claim he knew how to use it - at least in the sense you're asserting: that Ellicott understood and made a clear distinction between "bondman" and "chattel".

    So with that in mind, let's look at Ellicott's one and only use of the word "chattel" in all of Leviticus (drum-roll, please!):
    They shall not be sold as bondmen — That is, as personal property or chattels.

    Strange, it looks like Ellicott understood bondmen to mean personal property.

    Care to try that one again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You asserted it, but you didn't support.
    So, could you confirm that you now understand that my assertion wasn't "that no such conditions [for manumission] exist", as you claimed in post #130?

    Again, the assertion was that Ecclus. 33 is not a condition for manumission, as you claimed. As has been repeatedly explained for you now:
    Ecclus does not contain any explicit requirement for a slave owner to manumit their slave for any reason. There is no causal relationship in Ecclus. 33 between the slave being given too much work and as a result being allowed to leave slavery. Your claim that Ecclus. 33 + Deut. 23:15-16 = manumission magic is also refuted by multiple commentaries which explain that Deut. 23:15-16 is not a universal anti-return clause for all slaves escaping from horrible owners.
    It even fails for the simple reason that a slave's escape to favourable folks who won't turn him over to his master could not be considered "manumission" in any possible universe. It just doesn't work like that. The escaped slave is still considered the property of their owner by the owner, and the jurisdiction which provided for the owner's ownership of the slave, so technically the slave wasn't released from slavery (which is what manumit means), but merely granted asylum. It's not some magical process whereby the moment the slave is able to reach friendlier folks, trumpets sound across the land for all to hear, Callooh! Callay!, blaring the news that another slave has been manumitted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ecclus. 33 was referring to the requirement to mandate if labor exceeded normal wage laborer amounts (a position supported by Hebrew scholars cited).
    Again, there are no words in Ecclus. 33 which refer to an actual requirement to manumit. It's a hypothetical of "if your slave runs away because you were mean to him", and then a question "where will you go looking for him?" Again, no actual words which communicate that something is even required. No "must", "shall", "will be". Nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ellicott isn't talking about Ecclus. 33.
    I know - even he doesn't consider Ecclus. to be authoritative. Go figure.

    The reason Ecclus. was brought up here was because of your straw-man misrepresentation fo my statement regarding manumission, as explained above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This one quote (along with the two dozen requirements from post 32) directly contradicts your claim that there were no conditions that require manumission.
    That would make sense if I ever actually claimed that there were no conditions for manumission. For the 100th time now, I never made this claim. You really can't seem to help yourself, can you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please see above for my support. In the situation where slaves are chattel, the release of an ownership claim by one owner does not mean they lose their status as chattel or property. Note the citations of US and State law on the issue as well as the example of releasing a horse.
    Squatch, you already confirmed that American slaves were able to purchase their freedom, leading to manumission by their owners. The fact that there still may have been people who would choose to kidnap and enslave them and continue treating them as property doesn't change that. Again, your claim was that manumission, as defined as a slave's release by their owner, wasn't possible. This is simply false, and again, by your own admission, no less.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. The closest thing you have to a defense here is an invocation of the kind of reading we were taught to avoid as early as 6th grade (remember context reading?).
    So, wait, ridicule = good, or bad? It's ridiculous that you complain about being ridiculed, and then go on to perform your own ridicule. So, I guess we're even?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You completely ignore a very common example we use every day that has the same distinction, so calling it "ridiculous" is inappropriate, unless you are also claiming that every single financial professional on the planet that understands and uses the term "shareholder" doesn't understand the word they are using, and that you alone, future, understand what is meant.
    Again, by your own admission, slaves are what is obtained, not nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Corporal punishment does not imply chattel ownership.
    This would be a valid rebuttal if we didn't have any other examples of rights/powers of ownership being enjoyed by slave-owners, such as buying, selling, and inheriting slaves as property. You fully grant that slave-owners were allowed to beat their slaves. So the fact that they could freely beat their slaves, buy slaves, sell slaves, and inherit slaves, all support the conclusion that the slaves were property.
    A simple reason to conclude that corporal punishment by governing authorities doesn't itself imply ownership (no need for "chattel", as supported by your sources) is because it lacks the other rights/powers of ownership. So by all means, continue to compare the bible's treatment of slaves with the army's treatment of soldiers - your argument rests solely on the fact that both can be beaten, but completely ignores the big picture and the other ways in which the bible sanctions the treatment of slaves as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ironically you are making the same argument that Southern Slave holding farmers made against educated ministers and professors. It really isn't any more convincing now than it was then.
    And yet Xians had no problem supporting slavery for centuries. Your attempt to twist it into just the southern farmers alone being against all the enlightened and educated ministers and professors is simply historical sophistry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Just because an observer incorrectly interprets something doesn't mean that the underlying evidence is actually there.
    The scolar commentaries and historical data provided support that the interpretation is not incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    My apologies, I assumed you meant to imply that because it was necessary for your argument to be coherent. Otherwise you are making a formal fallacy (if a, then b, b therefore a). If you accept (as you seem to here) that these are core principles of other concepts, you have no merit by which to say that their existence means slavery is present.
    Let's take a look again at the definition of slavery as per the UN:
    "The status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised".
    "It is identified by an element of ownership or control over another's life, coercion and the restriction of movement and by the fact that someone is not free to leave or to change an employer."

    So, based on these clear principles, a person who is bought, sold, and inherited, is a person who is subject to slavery, and a person who is treated as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If slavery, then "being bought, sold, passed down as inheritance, and beaten"
    This is not correct, as you're missing the part about them being people.

    So:
    If slavery, then people being bought, sold, inherited, or beaten
    People being bought, sold, inherited, and beaten, therefore, slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This refers to the nations, and not to the individual servants, procured from these nations.
    This is a bare assertion which doesn't comport with plain-text readings or the scholar commentaries already provided. It's also simply incoherent given that you've already agreed that slaves (people owned as property) are obtained. So people are obtained, and then nations are inherited? Care to try that again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    they became servants of their own accord
    This is simply false. Not all slaves became slaves of their own accord. Permanent female Hebrews had no say in who they were sold to or when, children born into permanent slavery did not do so of their own accord.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    the servants were protected in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters
    They were not free to leave, or to choose to not produce labour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The words nahal and nahala, inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify articles of property.
    Lev. 25:46 doesn't use these words, but yarash, which means to inherit and possess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And? Why does coveting something mean that it is viewed as a property contract?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I noticed that that was the crux of the argument presented on the site you linked. Given that it offers no other Biblical evidence, but rests on this single word issue, the fact that it gets the word wrong means the site isn't relevant to your support.
    It wasn't the crux, but nice straw-man. That you fail to respond to the rest of the arguments and instead focus on this straw-man as justification for dismissing the entire site speaks volumes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Unless you can offer a source that shows Jews saw wives as the property of husbands this claim fails.
    The source, as always, is the bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I saw your attempted explanation, but it is a red herring fallacy. Nothing about their being "numbered" (and they aren't as I pointed out, a "herd of cattle" is just as much a group as "servants", one just has a specific name for the group while the other is simply grouped) is relevant to their status as property.
    You've got this completely backwards. The argument I'm making with Eccl. 2:7 is not that since they are numbered like other property they are also property. I'm responding to the claim that because they are listed separately from other property means they are not property. This claim fails because of the clear reason for the separation. As repeatedly explained, the reason for the separation is not because of the different statuses of property vs. non-property, but because of the different statements being made about each.
    Further, the verse clearly refers to them as slaves, which are people who are treated as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The argument is that when in lists, their status as people is clearly defined
    So what? Nobody's denying that they were people. The argument that, in lists, their status as people being defined is irrelevant to the fact that they are listed with other objects which are treated as property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You didn't look at the legend did you? Notice the Xs and +s next to those examples?
    You mean the Xs and +x which are clearly absent from the non-human uses of: bough, branch, breed, colt, foal, whelp?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, notice that at no point in the Old Testament is ben used specifically to reference a non-person in a literal sense.
    Gen. 18:7, Gen. 49:11, Deut. 32:14, Eze. 15:2, Zec. 9:9

    Care to try that one again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The command in the verse is to not kill them
    Again, you're playing with words in quite a dishonest way. The command doesn't state "don't kill them". The command is simply to take them as plunder. Of course, to do so they would have to not kill them, but the "not killing" part is not the goal, the goal is to take them as plunder.

    Again, you attempt to twist this into some altruistic war-stricken humanitarian aid is simply revolting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So, what is your point here? The verse is telling the Israelites to save the women, children, and cattle from the destruction and to take them with them (that is what bazaz literally means). IE “Don’t kill them, remove them from the destruction and take them with you.”
    Again, this is a dishonest twisting of the verse, and also the motivation behind the command, which is not to save people for the sake of saving them, but in order to take them as plunder. The commentaries support this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you concede then that this verse is commanding the Israelites to not kill them. Thank you.
    Chuck Smith's commentary: "go in, kill all the men and leave all the women and children alive and then you can use the women and children as servants"
    The goal is not to altruistically save people from death, but to have people to take as plunder.

    David Guzik: "You shall plunder for yourself: Plunder provided the wages for the army in ancient warfare, and underwrote the expenses for the battle"
    The goal is to take plunder which is used as income, not to altruistically save people from death.

    Matthew Henry: "the spoil they are allowed to take to themselves, in which were reckoned the women and children. Note, A justifiable property is acquired in that which is won in lawful war"
    The goal is to have spoil which is a justifiable property, not to altruistically save people from death.

    Care to try that one again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are arguing against a cartoon parody of the actual work rather than engaging the text in a wholistic context and consulting the understanding of legitimate scholars.
    Sure thing, dude. I just provided you with scholar commentaries which support the "cartoon parody". I guess those scholars are just evil and want to make parodies of the bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is relatively clear in the manner of your response which here tended to the personal and emotive rather than the objective and descriptive. "what you are doing is disgusting" not "the sentence structure or word meaning has this contemprory context..." If you cannot approach the subject calmly it might be an indicator that you are falling victim to a host of cognitivie biases like framing bias, the Semmelweis reflex, the Dunning-Kruger effect, or choice-supportive bias.
    I'm perfectly calm, dude, and only pointing out that taking the provision in Going to War for keeping women and children alive so they can be plundered and attempting to frame it as some altruistic aid mission simply fails miserably both from a logical and, just as importantly, a moral perspective when you look at the verses immediately before and after Deut. 20:14, where all the men are to be murdered, and in other cases, absolutely everyone is to be murdered. Way to spread God's love, dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Unless you are seriously maintaining that conflict and war are not a real part of life, then this is a silly and polyannaish rebuttal.
    LOL, you obviously don't fully understand the term pollyannaish, since what you're doing with Deut. 20:14 is actually pollyannaish.

    You're taking an abhorrent set of verses where captive survivors of war are commanded to be either murdered or taken as plunder to be servants and sex slaves, and trying to instead turn it into an optimistic and altruistic aid mission. This is what pollyannaish actually means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, I'll note that you provided no citation of this claim, which is a rule violation, please be more vigilant in the future.
    I cited the commentary previously. The fact that you point out such a ridiculous claim of a violation, especially when you follow it up with the full cite yourself speaks volumes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    God is the owner, not the people. The masters only have claim to the fruits of the labor.
    All that you are arguing for comes down to nothing more than some nebulous concept where it's claimed that some other party actually owns the property in question, and the people are merely granted the rights of ownership as stewards, or something. This claim is irrelevant to the fact that specific rights/powers of ownership over people are enjoyed by people.
    Further, since you accept that commentary, then you also agree that the people are the property, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As I pointed out earlier, that isn't what the verses mean either in appropriate context or even in a plain text reading. You don't consume the people, you consume what they produce. I don't consume the land, I consume the fruits of the land. Conflating the two concepts is intellectually lazy.
    And buying, selling, and inheriting people is, of course, not consuming them - it's owning them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because plain text reading isn't a thing. When you say "plain text reading" what you mean is "how future reads that passage." There is no object thing as a "plain text reading."
    Stop this straw-man nonsense. I've provided multiple commentaries supporting the plain-text reading. Your objection that plain text reading isn't a thing is simply ridiculous, if only because you're the one who first started using the term in this thread.

    Of course, you'll claim up and down how that plain-text reading is merely my interpretation, but you're flat-out ignoring the fact that actual biblical scholar commentaries and historical data have been provided which support it. So again, it's not just "my interpretation". The most you could say is that it "an interpretation", and that what you are offering is "another interpretation". Have fun with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Nor can you claim to be hiding in the commentaries, rather you've just taken small portions of them and then not included the link to prevent easy refutation.
    I initially provided links to all the commentaries pages I was using. That you now claim I'm attempting to prevent refutation is simple grasping at straws at this point.
    Further, the only valid refutation would be to prove that the commentaries don't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    These two sections are inconsistent. My rebuttal can't be a strawman if you literally make the same argument a sentence later.
    Your strawman was to claim that I'm using "one verse, taken out of context by a sub set of uneducated farmers", which I'm not doing. It's not just one verse, and it's not taken out of context. Again, the very fact that the bible was used for so long to support owning people as property only goes to prove that the bible isn't some divinely-inspired and moral guide from a supreme being, and cannot be seriously considered as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Was it the Catholic Church?
    Yes. Ever heard of the Dum Diversas?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Aquinas maybe?
    From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...omas_Aquinas):
    "Aquinas considered slavery as a result of sin and was justifiable for that reason"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So it is a bit odd to subscribe to that tiny, tiny, self interested sub-set rather than 25 centuries of scholarly consensus on the actual plain text reading of the Old Testament.
    Again with the tiny tiny group of slave-owners against centuries and centuries of non-slave-owning Xians straw-man nonsense.

    You really are putting maximum effort into twisting the facts to conjure this outrageous imbalance between those Xians who supported slavery and those who opposed it. While I admire your conviction, your claim that only a tiny tiny group of racist southerners were in support of the vast amount of slavery taking place in America is simply ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except the OP makes no such reservation. You invented that later when it was clear that scholarly consensus disagreed with you.
    Sure thing, dude. I explained why it's irrelevant to the OP, referring to specific wording in the OP.

    In any case, as supported at beginning of this post, even scholarly consensus on the Talmudic era shows that Jews had no problem with permanent ownership of slaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    you need to consider the interpretation of the people who actually wrote the text!
    Considered, and found wanting. See the wikipedia page on Jewish view of slavery, extensively cited at the beginning of this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That's fine, but since you haven't supported your OP, nor the other claims made within the thread, you are tacitly admitting that your conclusion doesn't stand.
    Sure thing, dude.

    Bottom line: you already admitted that slaves were what is obtained, and slaves are defined as people who are owned as property.

    Therefore #1 is valid, and supported by the following biblical scholar commentary:

    Lev. 25:44-46
    Barnes: "Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom. Such slaves might be captives taken in war, or those consigned to slavery for their crimes, or those purchased of foreign slave-dealers."
    Pulpit: "Slavery is not forbidden in respect to non-Israelites."
    Ellicott: "Besides the surrounding nations, the Hebrews are also permitted to obtain their slaves from those strangers who have taken up their abode in the Holy Land ... These, but not the Hebrews, the masters may hold as their absolute property."
    Constable: "God permitted the Israelites to own slaves from the pagan nations around."
    Guzik: "Foreign slaves among the Jews did not have the same rights as Hebrew slaves sold into servitude because of debt; they could be held as slaves for life"

    Num. 31:18
    Ellicott: "The Israelites were allowed to make slaves of their captives."
    Pulpit: "Keep alive for yourselves, i.e., for domestic slaves in the first instance. Subsequently no doubt many of them became inferior wives of their masters, or were married to their sons. Infants were probably put to death with their mothers."
    Poole: "Keep alive for yourselves; either to sell them as slaves to others, or to use them as servants to yourselves, or to marry them, when you have prepared and instructed them."

    Ex. 21:7
    Cambridge: "Bondwoman or female slave: 'maid-servant' has associations which are not at all those of ancient Hebrew society. Here the word (’âmâh) denotes in particular a female slave bought not only to do household work, but also to be her master’s concubine."
    Pulpit: "Among ancient nations the father's rights over his children were generally regarded as including the right to sell them for slaves."
    Barnes: "A man might, in accordance with existing custom, sell his daughter to another man with a view to her becoming an inferior wife, or concubine."

    Again, regardless of whatever else any of those commentaries say, the above statements make it clear that the bible does indeed sanction slavery.

    The bible explicitly sanctions slavery (#1), and fails to clearly express opposition to slavery (#2).

  21. #139
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    itself proves that the bible fails as a moral guide.
    While I'm drafting the rest of the response, I think it would be profitable to pursue the core argument a bit, it might clarify some of the disupte and help us stream line a response. Please bear with me.

    Does the following argument follow? Make sense? If not, why not?

    P1) The bible allows for charity.
    P2) The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to charity.
    C) The bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  22. #140
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    While I'm drafting the rest of the response, I think it would be profitable to pursue the core argument a bit, it might clarify some of the disupte and help us stream line a response. Please bear with me.

    Does the following argument follow? Make sense? If not, why not?

    P1) The bible allows for charity.
    P2) The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to charity.
    C) The bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.
    If someone holds that charity is wrong, then this argument makes perfect sense.

    As I already said, Squatch, I'm done playing games with you. If you want to twist this into a discussion about how owning people as property is not wrong, then don't bother participating.

 

 
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Men/women's guide
    By Just Me in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 20th, 2008, 11:38 PM
  2. Slavery in the Bible
    By KneeLess in forum Religion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 21st, 2004, 08:13 PM
  3. The Bible condones slavery
    By 3rdPersonPlural in forum Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 27th, 2004, 11:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •