I Can't Answer That!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лют 2024
- Have you ever run across a very thorny question that you just could not find an answer to? Most of us have numerous questions that puzzle us. How would you answer questions like:
• Is there a God?
• Did God really create the universe?
• Why did God allow Satan to sin?
• Why did God create Satan if he knew he was going to rebel?
• Is the Trinity in the Bible?
• Why don’t Christians Worship on the Sabbath?
• If Jesus is God, why did he say, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”
• Why is it so hard to accept myself?
• Will God save me from my sin?
• Are women inferior to men?
• Does the Bible support Slavery?
We humans demand answers. Welcome to my new UA-cam miniseries called, “I can’t answer that!” Where I attempt to answer some of the difficult questions of life. It’s based on my new book of the same name coming out later in 2024. You’ll want to pick up a copy.
![Fall Asleep Listening to Genesis: Bedtime Scripture for Deep Sleep [Holy Bible Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/46IfXNk8YI8/mqdefault.jpg)
Do we get our deceased beloved pets with us in Heaven? The Bible has a scripture that mentions the soul of the turtledove, and another that says if it has a physical body it has a spiritual body. So, do you think we get them with us in Heaven?
That a great question. I know that there will be animals in heaven. Revelation 6:2-8; 19:11. At least horses. I don't know if they will be our animals. There will be a new heaven and new earth complete with trees, rivers, And sun. I assume that animals will be there too. Who knows! If God loves us so much he sent his son to die for us, maybe he loves us enough to give us our pets too.
@@denniskreiss Thank you!
No you will not. Animals don't have souls.
Why does the Bible condone lifelong chattel slavery? I've never understood that.
That's a great question. We are going to addresses that one. And I recently spoke on that here. ua-cam.com/users/liveafayNJZcQpk?si=9dAtn81-lItRcx2f
@@denniskreiss I just watched the video you referenced here. I commented there, but will put it here too. This did not answer my questions, but really kind of more avoided it? Anyway, here is my comment from that video.
You encouraged me to watch this video because of my question about slavery elsewhere. So I have, and I'm kind of disappointed actually? Very little, if not none of this actually addressed the issue of the ACTUAL slavery in the Bible. I mean you literally said here that you weren't going to discuss the negative passages, but only the positive ones. And we could look up the negative ones ourselves. Well I have looked up the negative ones as you suggested. Not just looked them up, but studied them in depth. In context of the rest of the Bible and also in context of the rest of the ancient near east as well at the time. And it's these problematic verses that are the problem. The ones you didn't want to talk about here. THIS is what I want to talk about, and the one thing you did not talk about here. I hope in your upcoming video you said you were doing you are going to address those.
Because you are mistaken on a great number of things in just this video here frankly. Because the Bible does not just "regulate" slavery. No, it does in fact condone the practice. That's what makes it different from the other things you talked about. Lying, theft, murder etc. It specifically says we should not do those things. That they are a sin. Commands us not to do them actually. But slavery? We're only told how to do it correctly according to Gods law. And never that we shouldn't. That's what makes slavery a different animal in the Bible. I mean how were the Israelites supposed to know slavery was wrong if God never told them that?
And you either don't understand, or failed to mention that there are two different sets of laws in the OT. One for Hebrews, and different laws for foreigners. And it was these foreigners that were the actual slaves in the Bible. Actual lifelong, generational chattel slaves. Owned as property and able to be bought and sold. Passed down as an inheritance. It was only the Hebrews that couldn't be slaves. Had to be released after 6 years. Couldn't be kidnapped. Had to be voluntary, and were there because of debt. Foreign slaves in Israel though? None of those things. If a foreigner did become a slave because of debt? They were never released. Lifetime slave. And their children after them by the way. Generation after generation. But most were captives of other nations wars, enslaved and sold to Israel. Or simply born into it. Not voluntary those, nothing to do with debt, and never released. Generation after generation. Your claim that they were slaves because of debt isn't really true if you look into it. THIS is the slavery in the Bible. The one thing you did not talk about in your discussion of slavery in the Bible. The actual slavery in the Bible. Something I say all too often I have to say.
And you kept quoting Exodus 25 when it's actually Leviticus 25. No big deal, but I wanted to correct you on that. As to the return of runaway slaves being illegal in Israel? You misunderstand this verse unfortunately. This is talking about FOREIGN slaves that escape to Israel, not to slaves within Israel. A little research here will show you that. And the laws about the actual slavery in the Bible are actually pretty consistent with the laws existing in other nations at the time if you look into it. Some better for sure, some worse, but mostly consistent. And I just don't understand it. And I have studied it for a long time now.
Hey Nick. Thanks for your comments... unfortunately, most are simply not based on fact. You and I will have to disagree on whether or not the Bible condones slavery. In fact, maybe the word condone is the wrong word. The Bible does not approve of nor anywhere suggest that slavery is a good thing that should be an integral part of society. Instead it regulates it so that it cannot be abused and sets up roadblocks to make it unfavorable and thus sets the stage for its demise.
In the video I clearly referenced the difference in laws for a Hebrew Slave and a foreigner. What I did not get into is the Jewish commentaries and history of manumission for foreign slaves. Non Jewish slaves were classed as slaves for life, but they also had a way out of slavery. 1. They could purchase their way out of slavery just like Jews could. 2. They could convert to Judaism, and thus be subject to the same freedoms as the Hebrew slave. In fact history tells us that this produced a steady stream of Jewish converts. 3. If they were physically abused, the courts were required to intervene and free them. 4. They could be freed if they married a Jew. So, contrary to your viewpoint of lifetime slaves, history tells us that there were several routes to freedom that any foreign slave could take advantage of.
As to Deuteronomy 23:16 (Not exodus or Leviticus) "You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you." which talks about not returning runaway slaves. Most commentators do say that the slaves primarily in focus here are foreigners. But that is not necessarily a requirement of the context. It is not explicitly stated these are foreigners. It simply says that it is "a slave who escaped."
So no, I stand by what I have said. If you want to hold another opinion that's up to you. But you might want to take a look at some of the following historical references that undermine your viewpoint:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery#:~:text=In%20particular%2C%20the%20Talmud%20said,could%20expect%20more%20compassionate%20treatment.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/slavery-in-judaism
www.sefaria.org/sheets/300404?lang=bi
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2988&context=cklawreview
www.myjewishlearning.com/article/does-the-bible-condone-slavery/
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/www.yu.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Morality_0.pdf
@@denniskreiss I think maybe you should look up the definition of "condone"?
"accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue"
This is, in fact, exactly what the Bible does. So it condones slavery "by definition" as I said. My point stands. I never claimed it "approved" or "said it was a good thing". Those are your words, not mine. But I do say that it never once says it's a "bad thing". Which is true. I wish it had. By your argument, America also never condoned slavery. Just simply regulated it. So....what no harm no foul? (or "And therefore....what? That's for you Josh). What exactly is your point here?
And what exactly are these "roadblocks set up to make it unfavorable and thus set the stage for it's demise"? I hear this claim a lot, but we're never clearly told what they are. Certainly not in the OT. And the NT has relatively little to say on the subject.
And you did not get into the laws for foreigners. You literally said you weren't going to get into the difficult passages. Well the laws for foreigners are the difficult passages. That's what was disappointing about your video. And I'm less interested in what commentaries and writing thousands of years later said, than I am with what the Bible itself says. And of course the Bible itself says nothing about a way out for these foreign lifelong chattel slaves. But I certainly would agree with some of your list for sure.
1. Well, not "just like Jews could". A Jewish owner of a Jewish indentured servant had an OBLIGATION to sell him back to his family. He had no such obligation for a foreigner. Now if a family member came and offered enough money to the Jewish owner would he sell the foreign slave back? Probably. They're only human after all. But it certainly wouldn't be the slave himself doing it. If he had that much money he wouldn't be a slave in the first place. And of course, slaves weren't paid. But one of your own sources you quote says "It is mandatory, and it is prohibited for one to free his Canaanite slave"
2. This is not true at all. Converting providing them many rights that Hebrews had for sure. But release in the Sabbath or Jubilee years was not one of them. This simply shows a complete misunderstanding of the reason for these years on your part. (This is one example where referencing Wikipedia is not good. Often it can contain great information on a subject that is well referenced. You'll notice in the one you included in your link it literally says "citation needed", and when talking about being freed upon conversion has absolutely no citation. Because there isn't one, because it isn't true). You'll notice your second reference cited does not include this in his list, unless the master declares him publicly to be a free Jew (ie. manumission). A little research into this and you'll understand (hint, it all has to do with land). Similar to you learning about the runaway slave law in Deuteronomy 23 it seems. Which I'll mention at the end here.
3. " If they were physically abused, the courts were required to intervene and free them". This is simply not in the Bible. At least not how you've worded it. You'd have to define "physically abused" first. There are passages that specify that if you knock out an eye or a tooth, then the slave would have to be released. But this is in the discussion of laws for Hebrews in Exodus 21. And Leviticus (and your own sources) makes it clear that they had softer rules for them than foreigners did. So you can't just simply claim that even that would mean the release of a foreign slave. After all Exodus 21:20-21 specifically says that there is no punishment at all otherwise. So you could definitely beat your slaves without any punishment. There were simply limits on how badly you could. And personally? I would consider "beating with a rod" as physical abuse. But perhaps you don't?
4. "They could be freed if they married a Jew". Well if they married the right Jew they might. That woman would have to be part of a clan or tribe that owned land in Israel, and not a convert herself. If he married a convert then no release. And I'd have to look more closely into the laws again to see if that was even true if her family owned land. Since women had no hereditary rights I don't believe. Not something I've looked into recently. But at best a contingent or possible release.
But regardless, exceptions to the rule prove the rule I stated. And that the Bible itself clearly stated. That foreign slaves were slaves for life. As were their children after then generation after generation. This is still true as much as you may not want it to be. That they could be freed by their master doesn't change the fact that they were slaves for life. I mean again, slaves in America could be manumitted too. So what? Doesn't mean that most slaves didn't get freed does it? Because they simply didn't.
"As to Deuteronomy 23:16 (Not exodus or Leviticus) "You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you." which talks about not returning runaway slaves. Most commentators do say that the slaves primarily in focus here are foreigners. But that is not necessarily a requirement of the context. It is not explicitly stated these are foreigners. It simply says that it is "a slave who escaped."
So your position is that you disagree with the Christian and Jewish Biblical scholars on this point. As you so eloquently put it in your comment to me, " If you want to hold another opinion that's up to you"...
Because you never read the Bible