Biblical Slavery in a Nutshell ⛓
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лис 2017
- What rules did the Bible have for slavery? What was it like to be a slave under the Old Testament Law? Is there any comparison between biblical slavery and modern slavery?
I answer these questions and more in this snippet. The full teaching can be found here. • SLAVERY and the BIBLE!...
ah the sweet sound of context context context.... little do people understand that there were no jobs for flipping burgers nor did the UAW exist _anywhere_ back in the day.
+inTruthbyGrace If the same set of circumstances back then presented themselves again today, would you support attacking an enemy and killing all the men and enslaving their women and children? If such actions were moral in biblical times then surely they would be moral today too? Note that I'm not claiming that the same set of circumstances have ever presented themselves today - I'm posing a hypothetical question.
inTruthbyGrace so are you saying that God's laws change based on when things are happening?
Jesse Selbert don't expect a reply. These theists have very weak arguments and they know it. Nobody with a conscience would actually consider these laws anything but evil
Jesse Selbert “god’s law” apparently changes when [it] decides to change them ...so no has nothing to do with time or context. has everything to do with trying to fix his bugs. every time it fixes something something else breaks.
Xain'd Sleena yes don’t be so nice u mean god told them ok take the women an rape them oh he said let them grieve then rape them
The verse you read, Exodus 21:20-21, ends with the justification "for he is his property." Look at that carefully. Please explain how your opening statement "it was actually an indentured servitude" relates to this clear biblical expression that a human being is the property of another. Also, if the eye or tooth of a slave is destroyed, is merely releasing the slave a just punishment? The person could be blind for life. You did not cover here the loophole in Ex. 21:7 where a man can be made a slave for life if the 'master' gives them a family. Also, if your bull kills a slave, you only owe 30 shekels and the bull dies, whereas if the bull kills a free person it is death. Clearly, the slave's life is valued less in this model. We could also address the treatment of Hebrew vs. foreign slaves (Lev. 25: 44-46), prisoners of war (Num. 31: 17-18) and the roles of gender for slaves under biblical law. But, why not just make this simple - slavery is immoral - it always has been and always will be under ANY circumstance, and, unfortunately this text, purportedly inerrant, demonstrably does not say this and instead sanctions it. This issue, in fact, was a driving force of division for Southern Baptists in 1845. They weren't reading these same words wrong. Perhaps the above issues are addressed in your other videos. As always, thanks for your time.
why didn’t you respond to this Mike?
Someone respond to this bc I am uneducated in this area and need help
JD For JC
No, you’re just more honest. The indentured servitude excuse only applied in certain cases and only for Jews. They were allowed to own as property any non-Jew. They were allowed to do anything with them including beating them, as long as the beating didn’t kill them within two days.
This is a fantastic rebuttal. Bravo.
And Thank you. It saves me the time I would have spent writing.
@@jdforjc3693 There never will be a response. I remember the first time I read Leviticus 25:44-46 when I was still a Christian and had my faith instantly shook. You need to ask yourself how the word of god can CLEARLY advocate for owning humans as property.
Is Leviticus 25:44-46 addressed somewhere? I'm wondering what the explanation would be.
Silhouette ““However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.”
Leviticus 25:44-46
LVC so if the government passed some laws that specified the same sort of laws that the Bible specified on how you could treat your slaves, would it then be moral today to still own slaves in the US?
(I also have to disagree with you about the other nations being brutal compared to Israel. Have you read the Bible? They were a brutal people account to their own writings)
In the bible it never says slavery, or any kind of servitude is moral.
The fact that we have so many regulations about it in the bible shows its a tricky subject and should be avoided.
There are no regulations on loving people, but there are on having servants. Having servants isnt immoral, cruelty towards them is and it was highly discouraged in OT law. It wasnt banned due to implementation, but servants had the right to leave and break the contract anytime.
we already have to some extent implemented old testament servitude law when it comes to having a job.
When you dont have a job you go and get one, back in the day if you didnt have a job you would become a servant.
Now at days we have a contract and back in the day they had contracts.
If you decided to leave your job nobody would stop you, same with old testament servitude.
This even applied to foreign servants, they had the right to go away from their masters, but since they were in Israel and had no experience with that society, masters were simply a safe way of life, plus like the example of Sheshan, servants would marry their masters daughters.
So really i think we already have the basic idea of OT law implemented.
LVC instead of picking apart everything you said, I'll just look at a couple of the things you brought up.
When you say that the foreign slaves had the right to go away from their masters, but they had no experience in that society, blah blah...where did you get that information?
Now you also seem to be saying that having a job is basically the same as OT slavery. When you read the word slavery in the bible, in your mind, do you imagine that means " having employee's"?
LVC So what part of Lev 25:44-46 indicates simple servitude instead of slavery? Even in the context it is clear what that passage is talking about.
Missing context includes what is written directly after Exodus 21:21 “for he is your property.” In the next sentence it lays out what that means, that his property is his money and that it may be inherited by his children. Seven year contracts were exclusively for Hebrew men. Exodus clearly lays out that you may take your slaves from the nations around you (not a racial distinction but sure;y a cultural one, just as important to them) or make slaves of prisoners of war. There are also provisions for how a Hebrew man may sell his daughter as a slave. Women, Hebrew or not, did not have the same regards.
As for the concept that no slaves were ever used in sexual slavery, that defies logic. Dispute the laws against adultery, how likely is it that men were ever convicted of adultery. All the biblical accounts are of women committing adultery. Many prophets, starting with Abraham, had children with slaves or heir wive’s “handmaidens.” It is human nature that when given unchecked power over other people to abuse that power.
DNA has shown that African Americans decent of slaves today average 24% European dependency. Even 150 years post slavery when laws prohibited marriage between white and black. We know how those genes got there.
Men rape. It’s a fact of every culture, that rape exists and is predominantly a crime by men against women, usually of lower status. Being a female and a slave is the bottom of the power period. Being rich and male puts one at the top. It is beyond naive to suggest that men didn’t rape their slaves, in any period. The wives aren’t in a position to complain. The slave owning men of their community had no incentive to prosecute fellow slave owners.
You only have to look at priests and pastors of todays time to see that power corrupts. Even men of great fame and esteem today have committed sexual crimes. If in todays culture these men can’t be stopped because over and over these crimes are ignored and covered up, imagine 2,000 years ago men with their property alone on farms with no oversight, no mega church, no riches or fake to lose, and you claim they are less likely to sexually assault slave women. Women were see as property, slave women were below that. There is not a single case I can think of in the Bible where a man is disgraced for sexually assaulting a woman.
It takes more then faith to believe sexual sins only started in the 20th century. It takes purposefully blinding oneself to reality, with a dash of contempt for the women you expect to believe this.
It sounds like you have an issue with people, not God, yet you try to blame God for it. The Bible clearly says adulterers are to be put to death, regardless of gender. If a group of men try to hide it and not be punished, then that shows how evil those men were, or their society. God gave free will to everyone. If people choose not to follow his rules, that is not God's fault
@@Natsu9k The problem is that people believe the Bible was written by God. What I have a problem is with a book calling itself holy, which instructs Hebrew men to treat women and workers as slaves. Not a great moral arbiter.
And there were many times that the men of the Bible had sex with their slaves and it was never condemned. Such as Abraham & Jacob. Not only was it not condemned, it is explicitly written to have happened because their wives encouraged them to.
And yes of course my problem is with people. I don’t believe in any gods, so I have no complaints about them.
It comdems rape with a death sentence, so there definitely is biblical evidence that you can't rape people.
@@Natsu9knah not people that's with an ideal that was made up by men and molded by Constantine in his council to unite the Roman empire leading to now. History gives better lessons than fiction books 👍
Mike, you are so helpful to me brother. I have many relationships with many guys who are not Christians, and some that are atheist or negative toward religion. I use everything you give me. Thanks.
Biblical slavery was almost indistinguishable from Antebellum Chattel Slavery. The sheer levels of dishonesty exhibited by winger are astounding 😡
@@trumpbellend6717 cope
@@trumpbellend6717biblical slavery was not chattel slavery it was indentured servitude, chattel slavery was created in trans Atlantic slave trade.
@@Ma1q444
Before getting into the meat of biblical "slavery" I usually find discourse facilitated by a common understanding of what "Chattel Slavery" is and the morality of it. This often will demonstrate evasion and dishonesty on the part of the apologist, hopefully that will not be the case here, so...........
Please tell me, do you regard the practices that occurred in the *Antebellum American South* over more than 200 years to be "Chattel Slavery" *YES or NO* ??
Do you regard this to be an example of true "slavery" and immoral *YES or NO* ? what was it that made it so ? please list specific examples of the treatment of these people that made it immoral.
This should be really easy as it is widely regarded as one of the most abhorrent of practices mankind has engaged in for obvious reasons that your response hopefully will highlight.
Remember I am asking specifically about the slavery of the Antebellum South *NOT THE BIBLE* which we will move onto AFTER you have clarified you position with regards to "Chattel Slavery"
If you are unable or unwilling address this then I must assume honesty and truth are secondary to maintaining the ideology you WANT to be true. In which case I will accept your defeat, our discourse is over and I bid you goodnight, the choice is yours.
I re-emphasise I am NOT asking about anything in the bible so please don't attempt obfuscation evasion or misdirection by attempting to show examples of perceived biblical differentiation at this stage. I am more than happy go discuss what the bible says in great detail AFTER we get this out of the way 👍
@@Ma1q444
Lol you ignorance and incredulity is matched only by the confidence with which you spout it dear. The role of the *_arvisa_* in the *_Mikveh_* and its implications with regards to intent that affected the status of the *_Ger Toshav_* along with the *_Proselyte_* and the heathen *_Slave_* more than adequately demonstrates the absurdity of your narrative.
Leveticus 25:
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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.* 46 You *can bequeath them to your children as inherited property* and can make them *slaves for life,* but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Apparently the bible disagrees with you.
They will always ignore this. Along with the verses condoning taking POWs as sex slaves.
Like a coward, Mike has Pinned the stupid "context" post on the top and ignores all the rest of the comments. lol.
@@jaclo3112 i dont really know how to ignore it
@@kelseykjarsgaard5774 Neither can I but true Christians like Mike will say "Who do you believe, me or your eyes that are reading the very verses that explicitly condone brutal chattel and sex slavery".
Hey guys, ima be honest. I think the Bible may show chattel slavery. But I don’t think it shows sex slavery
The indentured servitude spoken of here only applies to the Israelites. Slaves from other nations were bought and sold and enslaved for life. This pastor is either being intellectually dishonest, or hasn’t read the Bible. I’m not sure which is worse. He also doesn’t mention that a master can beat his slave as ruthlessly as he wants as long as the slave doesn’t die, lose a tooth, or lose an eye.
+AFR0PR1NC3, writes _"The indentured servitude spoken of here only applies to the Israelites"_
And there is a trick you can use to convert your Israelites servants into full-blown slaves.
He actually does talk about the beating close to death point. Rewatch.
@@jacobconklin3485 He words it in the most backward way possible. He’s talking about how the master loses out on his slave’s labor if he beats them close to death so it’s essentially a punishment for both of them. He portrays this like it’s a positive for the slave. Truly gross stuff.
@mike winger
Do you take questions?
He does every Friday on his 20 questions with Mike video
It wasn't the same penalty for the free as it was for a slave. For the free in Mosaic Law it was eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and life for a life. For the slave if his eye or tooth got put out the slave went free and if the slave was killed, the owner was punished, not put to death. I don't know where Winger comes up with what he does. It's not biblical.
Hebrew servants were set free after 6 years and were not to be treated as slaves. The foreigners were bought and sold as slaves and were property for life(Leviticus 25:44-46).
tod beard
Pure evil
Jo Griffin
Parts of the Bible are pure evil? Agreed!
So you would beat people as long as they don't die in 2 day's. today you get prison for such and your god will do what he wants with you also.
Do u have book on this?
These comments are so nasty. Thanks Mike for the information you shared.
The comments are nasty because he's lying. Leviticus 25:44-46
@@garrgravarr one time
This helped me to be ready to give an answer to my nephew and brother. Thank you. My bro confronted me with this. I was unable to answer it. I will bring it back up. Praise God. Please pray that they become believers in Christ.
Biblical slavery was almost indistinguishable from Antebellum Chattel Slavery. The sheer levels of dishonesty exhibited by winger are astounding 😡
Don't bring these arguments to them if they have any understanding of the information in the Bible. Lot of bad stuff on there like what he's cherry picking parts of to say it's a moral basis.
Mike, I think you're wearing the exact same glasses I used to wear. Seriously. Although you seem rather confident with your extrapolations from the laws in the OT... I wonder have you read the historical records of the period, and that's how you got the idea the laws are understood and implemented as you said they are? If not, what would be your source of confidence?
Hey Mike I just wanna ask a quick question. You say, God-fearing Christain. Why am I fearing God he loves me right? If I fear him but he loves me it kinda seems like an abusive relationship.
Respecting Him more so :) God bless you❤️
"Love me and love me the right way or I will torture you forever" is an abusive relationship, period.
Fred, it’s don’t sin or face God’s judgment. To fear God means to have respect for Him.
If there’s no fear at all, no respect, you will not obey. You won’t love Him back. You will then do what you want and then suffer the consequences for it. Because you’ll love yourself. We all love either ourselves or Him.
@@jenniferwalsh1731 Do you fear your parents then. If not why do you respect them or do you not?
Hi mike, I’m curious if your views on this subject have changed since you made this video. There have been loads of atheist videos on the subject since then? Have any altered your views?
I’ve seen several such videos and was sad to see how badly they ignored context. It seemed as though little effort was made to understand the passages in question. I get the impression that some people want to take advantage of a hot topic to pursue their own ends which are more about defaming the Bible than accurately understanding it.
Mike Winger your type of context is distorting what is in print, your bible states owning people as property straight up
Mike Winger You are only talking about one kind of people non Hebrew people could be kept as slaves for life. And passed on to children.
Mike Winger You don’t read the Bible or you are a liar which is it?
Mike Winger Why don’t you address ideas, not motivations?
I've heard these justifications/apologetics over and over again with regards to slavery in the bible and I still have a difficult time believing the you're actually believing what your saying.
ian philip
They justify evil cause they can’t handle truth
ian philip
Yeah he is lying.
They look at the context and don’t let atheists twist it to suit their own views.
Doesn't matter how often you've heard it.
God said beat them as long as they don't die in 2 days if not a loving God its a torturing mean evil god offul creature.
Who is butchering the spelling on your video?
Why does every apologist BS about biblical slavery? Simply read Leviticus 25:44-46. You are to buy your slaves from the nations around you can own them as property for life and pass them onto children as inheritance. Not kidnapping. It was purchasing a slave- chattel slavery.
So what if the owner was punished if he killed the slave or freed them if he put out a tooth or eye , It wasn't an eye for an eye and you could beat them as long as they recovered in a day or two with no punishment. Doesn't seem like love taps does it?
Please provide the verse that claims the slave owner was put to death if he killed the slave. It doesn't exist. Yes he was punished but it doesn't state any death penalty.
It seems like you only addressed an Israelite owning another Israelite you did not talk at all about the other kinds of slavery in the Bible. I mean, I understand why you would leave those out but if you’re going to use the method used in some of your other videos of “let’s see what the text says“ ... it seems you failed here.
Jesse Selbert Call out these other texts you speak of. Thanks
Nigel Joseph
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property.” (Exodus 21:2-11, 20-21).
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.”
@@nigeljoseph1722 Leviticus 25:44-46
"44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.45 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. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."
You are only telling half of the story that was only true for a certain type of people.
He's showing more ignorance would people open thier eyes and see the Bad in this.
@@trafficjon400 Ah yes, I rather starve and die then to work for someone for money?
Dont see how that is bad?
Thanks Mike. Your whitewashing of the clear teaching about the horrible teaching of the old testament regarding slavery has made me feel so much better. Keep up the cherry picking and misinterpretation. So much better than facing reality. WHEW!
I like your style Simon, it’s cutting to the bone.
Simon, keep it up with dismissing claims without addressing them. So much better than looking at the context of the verses.
Like you said, slavery in ancient Israel was driven only by poverty that is just a fact so how are you going to say he is whitewashing something that has nothing to do with race?
Utter crap !! You've not listened at all ..
Your just vexed that that slavery in the bible isn't anything like what you believed it was .
So your telling me if your facing starvation with no home or owe huge debt it's not better for you to enter a contract that would keep you safe , well fed , sheltered and clothed ?? A contract that gives you the right if your owner is abusive , unjust and just an awful obnoxious person, any slave had the right to run away and those Jews he ran to they had to take care of them. The slave didn't have to go back... What are you talking about ?? This was at a time when life was horrendously hard !!
Read these verses below about the rights of even those caught in war ??
“ ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:33-34
For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of Lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:17-19
All the same to the Lord? Really? Like, no difference between Israelites and non-Israelites?
Definitly not voluntary. And while it was for a set period of time, after that time period was over the slave could leave, but the slave would not be able to take his wife or his child if he had one while under his servitude contract. Meaning many slaves would be forced to stay for longer than 7 years, so they would be able to be with there family.
Matthew Kearney
And most importantly, this ONLY applied to Jews. Non Jews were owned as property and had no rights. Mike is a liar.
@@roems6396
Exactly!
@@roems6396 Even more, it ONLY applied to male jews. Fathers could sell their daughters into sex slavery and the women "could not go out as the men do". They were kept as slaves for life if the slave owner chose. Or he could pimp them off to other men, like Hebrew indentured slaves so they could keep them for life.
get it right you lying
Wow your dishonesty is pooring? Read scripture in context and then open your mouth. get the twig out.
This is super helpful, thank you. God is just!
Fundamentalist Dictionary:
Taken out of Context: (n): Read directly from the text.
So many of your points are not backed up by the actual passages of the OT.
From Numbers 31:
"14But Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who were returning from the battle. 15“Have you spared all the women?” he asked them.... 17So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, 18but spare FOR YOURSELVES every girl who has never had relations with a man." (emphasis mine)
There is only ONE reason you give that order. These virgins were sex slaves. No sugar-coating it. To compound the horror, apparently God was fine with it as later in the same chapter we get this hideous gem:
" 25The LORD said to Moses, 26“You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the congregation are to take a count of what was captured, both of man and beast. 27Then divide the captives between the troops who went out to battle and the rest of the congregation.
28Set aside a tribute for the LORD from what belongs to the soldiers who went into battle: one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, or sheep. 29Take it from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest as an offering to the LORD.
30From the Israelites’ half, take one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, or other animals, and give them to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.”
31So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD had commanded Moses, 32and this plunder remained from the spoils the soldiers had taken:
675,000 sheep,
3372,000 cattle,
3461,000 donkeys,
35and 32,000 women who had not slept with a man."
So we not only have Moses ordering the slaughter of a people (common in the OT) but we also have him ordering the virgins kept as spoils of war and God's only apparent response to this is "share them with the priests."
God is evil then?
@@trafficjon400 100% nailed it.
@@liamvosu4244Jesus loves you ❤️
Imagine what modern Jews and Christians would be saying if the God of their bible had outlawed slavery outright. They would be using it in their morality arguments for the existence of God.
God did outlaw slavery. He allowed servitude. They are 2 different things but some retards translating the bible didnt look at the context so they translated servitude as slavery.
LVC well there is the Hebrew word for servant vs. bondsman/woman. Leviticus 25 clearly shows slavery was condoned and made the distinction between servant and slaves(bondsman)
vivahernado1
Bondsman....Literally means there is a bond he is repaying. A slave is just that...a slave. A bondsman, is repaying a debt, or bond. There is a bond.
So there is a difference.
Josh Dub
The Bible absolutely condones slavery.
Leviticus 25:44-46
44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
LVC God never outlawed slavery.
The first part doesn’t address Israelites owning non-Israelite slaves which seemingly was not indentured servitude
Wow from start to finish the quality our the speaker and truth in the message is shown
I hope this guys goes viral
Manuel Marrero he did when he predicted the end of the world in September. If he's viral he is vitally hated
Factor Facts Lauren Hartshorne that’s most definitely not true. I’ve never preached the end of the world at any time. If you watched my videos you would see that I come against that sort of folly.
Mike Winger ok...
+Mike Winger what is your view on the Sabbath and (Isaiah 66:22,23)?
Factor Facts.. it's VERY easy for you to prove this with a time stamp link, the share button is right next to the "Thumbs down" icon! Go, queue up the video _proof_ of Mike saying such things, click share button and be sure to check the box that says "start at", *PASTE THE LINK OF YOUR **_proof_* , we'll have access to the entire video for context.... otherwise, crawl back under your bridge.
The very fact that a (white middle class American male) career pastor has to stand up in front of an audience and tapdance his way round excusing the "ambiguities" of a horrendous ancient book should be an absolutely gigantic red flag to *anyone* who cares about intellectual honesty.
True? i believed the wrong God all my life and had to stop for who would believe in a loving god who loves you to beat your people slaves as long as they don't die in 2 day's. they end up with PTSD BRAIN DAMAGE SUFFERING AT AN EARLY DEATH. How evil god offull is that.
Never reading Man inspired scripture again. or sickening to read that and sharing TRUTH with others might be a good idea . Loving Grace full God i do believe but not the Man inspired contradictions and foul Pratice of ignorance.
Skin color has nothing to do with anything.. The western world ended slavery, not any other culture. Also, the bible was in Africa before it was in Europe
@@trafficjon400Jesus loves you ❤️
Love the way you teach the bible, I could not agree with you more. May God bless you abundantly. Praise our Lord Jesus Christ
What Mike Winger does is called saying what others want to hear despite knowing that what is said is false and just the opposite of what is actually written.
Luis Pellicer Collado
You could just say that Mike straight up lies for UA-cam likes.
So, you support him lying?
So you like the fact that they lie about what is written in the bible? Cause that's how they are "teaching" (teaching requires the truth) the bible.
Amen!
Pastor Mike...Leviticus 25: 44-46 is a clear example and meets the definition of Chattel Slavery...People were SOLD from other nations not in accord with their will...Indentured Servants WILLFULLY entered into contracts [to better their circumstances]...The fact they were by Mosaic Law prohibited from mistreatment [you could say being a Chattel Slave is mistreatment] does not nullify the status of being sold as chattle...How do you reconcile the Scriptural text below with your statement?...I don't see it as compatible.
44 “However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you.
45 You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property,
46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.
Another attempt at justifying the unjustifiable. You only have to back a theist into a corner to find out how desperate they are to hang onto their beliefs.
MIKE WINGER... :D do a debate with Matt Dillahunty, Bart Ehrman, or Dan Barker :D if you are so sure about yourself
Doctor Josh Bowen would also make him look like an idiot
I would like to see you do a series on Ezekiel.
How about reading the whole bible, instead of skipping the parts that makes you uncomfortable. And no special pleading & arbitrarily the definition of words. Because reading the bible honestly, it disagrees with you.
Ahhhh I heard you stumbling trying not to say "slave owner" around 1:30 nice save
The Hebrew word for "slave" doesn't actually translate to slave. It translates to "servant" or "hired worker." Context is important, and language differences are one of the biggest keys to understanding what the Bible is really teaching.
Jer 2:14 (A.V.), but not there found in the original. In Rev. 18:13 the word "slaves" is the rendering of a Greek word meaning "bodies." The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply "servant," "bondman," or "bondservant." Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of slavery (Exd 21:20,21,26,27; Lev 25:44-46; Jos 9:6-27). The gospel in its spirit and genius is hostile to slavery in every form, which under its influence is gradually disappearing from among men.
Having consensual sex with someone of the same sex is punishable by death and an abomination to God. Beating your slave on the other hand? No punishment because “he is his money” Exodus 21:21 KJV
It's insane the lengths apologists will go to to defend their ancient holy book. It's a black and white question: is it ok to own people as property? If you answered "no" then congratulations, you are more moral than the god of the Bible and Jesus. If slavery is immoral it doesn't matter what time period the Bible was written in, period end of story.
You actually have to read your bible.
Cherry picking as you all do is not going to help you justify slavery and mass murder.
Your the one who cherry picks
Thou shall not own, buy, sell or treat people, yourself included, as property. I the LORD your GOD command this.
I guess it was too much to ask a PERFECT God to just speak clearly, for all ages. It's simple... I, as a lowly human,
can script a better set of commandments with very little thought, then your God. No harmonizing, no APOLOGETICS,
no different interpretations etc etc. Nothing to be taken out of context... just clear unambiguous wording.
I find it also _telling_ that right as Mr. Winger starts, he has to fidget with his shirt collar, anywhoo...
Down down with ideas of slavery,down down with the idea of Abraham relationship with Hagar
Thanks for this Mike, such a well summarised response to a heavily criticised Bible topic. I'll definitely refer people with questions to this video in the future. It'd be great if you put together more of these snippets covering individual topics (you do cover A LOT of stuff in your messages hahah). Also, I like your cat :P
Zazooma7
No it’s not. Mike just lied about what the Bible says about slaves.
+Sketchy, so you're not satisfied with him lying about biblical slavery, you want him to lie about even more biblical stuff...
Wow, so slavery seems like a pretty good deal after all; )
Put worst or the worst things in a religous book, and people will find a way to justify them 🤫
It is only indentured servitude for Hebrews, that part is only true in regards to them alone. But in regards to the Canaanites or any other foreigner it was chattel slavery. The master could even give a Canaanite woman to a Hebrew slave (But only if the Hebrew slave was married.. Hebrew slaves who were not married were NOT allowed to participate in the chattel program. This prohibition was put in place in the Torah to prevent a “wife loophole” for unmarried Hebrews who either did not want the responsibility of getting married to a Hebrew woman, or if they could not find a wife they could get in trouble or get into debt so that the master would give him a Canaanite concubine).
But the Torah does not say to go over seas and force people into ships and sail them back to be sold on an auction block. Nor was it racially motivated in the same way that it was in early America. Everything I said is 💯
Lying for Jesus 101!
Which part was a lie?
Prove it!
@@zekemorse4815the lie (probably ignorance) is that this preacher made the slavery spoken of in the Torah to be the same for both Hebrews and non Hebrews. Only the Hebrews were indentured servants.. but the Hebrews deal with foreigners (mostly the Canaanites) NOT as indentured servants, but was in fact a system of chattel slavery. This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. But it at least greatly improved the behavior of the Canaanites (or foreigners) who were no longer permitted to perform their abominable practices. And it fulfilled the prophesy of Noah that Canaan would be the lowest of slaves.
I simply do not have a problem with the slavery or other (what appears to be) brutal verses in the Bible. I embrace it and learn a lot about it and don’t try to smooth things out. With the Canaanites, it was 💯 Chattel slavery. When the master wanted to expand the operation he would give a Canaanite slave to a married Hebrew indentured servant and the children would belong to the master. That is chattel slavery.
It's interesting how the bible suddenly becomes factually true to atheists when comes to the book mentioning things like slavery. However, you'll never hear them debating the moral aspects of the miracles performed by Jesus for example.
Cause slavery is real and magic isn't.
Do remember that these particular laws were written for the ancient Israelites when they were starting their nation as well as for those living in the Roman empire. Today although slavery has been abolished, we still have the most number of slaves in world history. It makes no sense to blame God nor discredit the Bible when we keep treating each other like this.
Biblical slavery was almost indistinguishable from Antebellum Chattel Slavery. The sheer levels of dishonesty exhibited by winger are astounding 😡
@@trumpbellend6717 Then we might as well criticize other faiths such as Buddhism or Hinduism since they already existed long before Judaism and Christianity. I don't think it's fair to be judging a faith when they existed during the times when slavery was acceptable and widespread throughout the world.
@@richardlew3667
If so called "scripture" endorses slavery then it can be condemned and dismissed as a potential source of objective morality that anyone should adhere and aspire irrespective of what specific religion that is. Would you not agree ? 🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 As I already pointed out, these scriptures were written for the ancient Israelites and early churches in the Roman society. People weren't going to just relinquish their slaves, even if it was added in to the laws. The laws did however order that slave owners treat slaves as actual people. It wasn't until after the technological developments and the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman empire did we see slavery start disappearing.
@@richardlew3667
// "As I already pointed out these scriptures were written for the ancient Israelites and early churches" //
*Dictionary*
*Moral Relativism*
_the view that moral judgments can be seen as true or false according to a historical, cultural, or social context_
*Got Questions* ( Christian website )
*"Moral absolutism* _is the philosophy that mankind is subject to absolute standards of conduct that _*_DO NOT CHANGE with circumstances the intent of the acting agent_*_ or the result of the act_ _These standards are universal to _*_all humanity despite culture or era_*_ and they maintain their relevance_ *whether or not an individual or a "CULTURE" values them* _It is never appropriate to break a law that is based on one of these absolutes"_
So.... here you are arguing for a form of Moral Relativism and telling me how I must understand biblical morality was dependant upon "context" and time. ( shakes head in disbelief )
How about typology as the saints slaves to the Master.
Poverty not racial status?? That’s a lie. Leviticus 25:44-46
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
That’s literally the same exact thing whites did to Africans in the slave trade.
"nations" doesn't necessarily mean "race".
as for the "slaves for life", contrasted to Israelite slaves...
the only way i could think of why it was made this way is that foreigners didn't fall under the same law as the natives and thus didn't have the same rights. it could be like: "you are not part of us, thus we see no reason to protect your rights."
people back then were very tribalistic and didn't really have a universial concept of human decency, from what i know. i could be wrong, though.
Yudron Micros You are making an excuse. The entire point is that god allowed a people to enslave another people and rape virgins. That’s immoral it’s so damn painfully obvious that the Bible was written by the people who were doing the enslaving. Also there is no record whatsoever of Hebrews in Egypt that’s just a lie to justify the horrific things they did.
Jacob worked for 14 years. But that’s completely irrelevant. Do you even know the Bible.
Ahhhh..... the struggle of trying to explain away or justify horrible Bible verses. I wish this dude could debate Bart Ehrman, Mike Dilahaunty, Dan Bark. It is easy to make good points when there is nobody to call you out.
I totally agree.
"if you beat them you don't get off scott free" - It literally says the opposite.
Naqam refers to vengeance. Punishment. In exodus 21 there are multiple _actual_ references to 'put to death' and different language is used. Your argument here is false.
Religious apologists are like used car salesmen. They bend the truth and do whatever it takes to try and convince you everything is fine. Dishonesty ok if its for the cause.
That’s just crap! Slavery a service? For 7 years for Hebrew slaves, male by the way and the bible also explains how to trick them! For the Babylonians it was 3 years but the way… we know it was like the bible described it in exudus 21 and Leviticus 25
Classic example of how religion compels otherwise decent people to do reprehensible things, like lying. See Leviticus 25:44-46
When it came to slavery, the law treated Hebrews and non-Hebrews very differently. Slavery of Hebrews was similar to indentured servitude while the slavery of non-Hebrews was similar to American slavery.
Slavery of pagans had the following characteristics:
- Hebrews could attack and enslave the men, women and children of pagan cities (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)
- Hebrews could buy slaves from pagan nations (Leviticus 25:44-46)
- They will become your property
- They remain slaves for life
- You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property
- You are allowed to beat them as long as they don't die straight away (Exodus 21:20-21)
Now substitute White American for Hebrew and pagan for African, and the above sounds very much like the type of slavery that existed in American 200 years ago.
Don't forget that the only restriction on having sex with a slave recorded in the Bible is that if a free Israelite man had sex with a married slave woman, she would be flogged and he would have to sacrifice a sheep.
Xain, you speak truth. Unfortunately Mike doesn’t.
Jer 2:14 (A.V.), but not there found in the original. In Rev. 18:13 the word "slaves" is the rendering of a Greek word meaning "bodies." The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply "servant," "bondman," or "bondservant." Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of slavery (Exd 21:20,21,26,27; Lev 25:44-46; Jos 9:6-27). The gospel in its spirit and genius is hostile to slavery in every form, which under its influence is gradually disappearing from among men.
@@eddyroldan4935 that is blatantly not true and slavery is defined as owning people as property.
You cannot escape that with fancy apologetics.
@@eddyroldan4935 the best thing God could have commanded was that slavery was not permitted. The fact that he doesn’t indicates he is evil or non-existent.
There’s no moral justification for slavery, period.
There was both indentured servitude and chattel slavery in the bible: no amount of apologetics will whitewash that. Stop lying Mike.
Mike wont because his profeshion will loose Profit and in no way he's going to loose it. Doing the oposite of a true loving Creator he will be answering too? if one exist i pray to it. RESPONSE
What about when Israelites took slaves in war. That wasn’t contractual. And the Jews would take foreign women as their wives and concubines.
Man, i lost track of the number of lies in the first two minutes.
Slavery is the result of the Fall of Man, just as sin, death, war, suffering, and sickness are the result of the Fall. Ruies for warfare are also in the Bible.
Jews were slaves in Egypt, Assyria and Babylon - and God caused that to happen.. Many quote this verse as a reason for optimism, but it refers to a era of slavery by a people who bashed Jewish infants against rocks.
"For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future” - Jeremiah 29:11
Tooth decay is also not prohibited in the Bible.
// " tooth decay is also not forbidden in the bible" //
Lol the biblical God could forbid the gathering of sticks on the sabbath ( or you're executed ) the wearing of clothing of mixed fabric, being "near" a woman during her menstrual period, and the eating of shellfish but not forbid the owning and beating of people for forced labour 🤔 Hmm priorities I guess 😉
If slavery was not such a bad practice in biblical times then, why God struggled so hard to get Pharaoh to free his people from the Egyptian slavery? Why are you lying ?
1. That was forced slavery. Mike didn’t lie, he made a point to mention that forced slavery was condemned by God.
2. They were persecuted, harmed, killed, and not treated equally. The Bible says if you have a slave or servant that you need to treat them with kindness. Pharaoh did NOT do that. He had their infants murdered and he forced them with physical violence to do what he wanted them to do. The Bible condemns those practices.
Did you watch the whole video?
@@mariahouse7353 The video is nothing but a bunch of lies. They are not even phrases taken out of context, they are simply lies.
This is what the Bible says:
*Exodus **21:20**-21*
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, *but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."*
The rest are excuses for not recognizing the obvious because the brain prefers to make us see white what is black before risking to change its mind in something so deeply rooted. A defense mechanism, a very good one. But no matter how strong the mechanism is, the reality will not change.
Watch this whole other video, read your bible and meditate on it:
ua-cam.com/video/TDL0FttPX-4/v-deo.html
@@mariahouse7353 It's not just Winger but apologists in general who ignore verses like Leviticus 25:44-46 that tell you to buy your slaves from the nations around you and they're property for life.
I'm sorry but if a slave is purchased, that's not someone voluntarily entering into slavery
They all twist Exodus 21 and make it appear indentured servitude applied to all slaves when it only applied to Hebrew slaves.
Foreign slaves were property for life.
Read Exodus 21:1-6. That was a trick slave owners used to keep the Hebrew slave as property for life.
If the owner gave the Hebrew slave a wife, the wife and any children were the owner's property for life. If the Hebrew slave wanted to remain with his family, he had to declare his love for his master, they went into town before the judges, pierced his ear and bingo, he was property for life.
You do understand that the thing practiced by the Israelites and regulated by God, called "slavery" in some Bibles, was not the same as the chattel slavery practiced by the Egyptians - and the Bible condemns the latter while never okaying it?
@@heather2538 Those texts quoted above are in the Bible, but they leave out a few other texts which give them context:
1) "Deu 23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
Deu 23:16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. " - Slaves (no nationality mentioned - are free to escape when they want, and the Isrealites should provide them shelter.
To put that into a modern context, ask someone from a poor unstable country who wants to emigrate: "Would you be willing to go as a slave to the USA. You may escape any time, and then the USA should provide shelter for you, your previous owner has no claim on you, and may not oppress you."
If the USA is at all the kind of place he finds better than his own country, he would like the offer.
2) Other texts show that slaves and others had the choice of becoming Israelites. As such, they could also become the sort of people (Israelites) who go free in the year of jubilee.
There's an interesting 'tell' at the outset of this video, when Mr. Winger is nervously running his fingers between his neck and his shirt collar, and I presume it's because he is uncomfortable with the lies he is about to tell. Yes, there was a form of slavery laid out in the Bible which was similar to what we think of as indentured servitude, and which largely applied to Israelites who sold themselves to other Israelites for a specific period of time. This has nothing to do with the slavery addressed in Leviticus 25:44-46 -
44, where it says that “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
" This has nothing to do with indentured servitude and seven-year contracts. This is slavery for life, just as in the Antebellum South, and Mr. Winger either knows that or hasn't actually read the Bible. I mean can he seriously have read this passage and make the claims he is making in this video? Mr. Winger then goes on to lie about the practice of rape in the Bible, as well as the use of concubines who were not accorded the status of 'wife'. Did Mr. Winger miss he story of Abraham and Hagar? What sort of 'full status' did Abraham give Hagar after she bore him Ishmael, other than letting his wife drive Hagar off into the desert? Was this 'elevating' Hagar? Tell us more Mr. Winger. Perhaps we could go into the morality of David and his various women? The Bathsheba story for example.
Then of course there is the treatment of the Midianites in chapter 31 of Numbers, where Moses directed his soldiers to kill everyone, including the children, except for the virgin girls, which they could keep. So in a single story you have genocide, kidnapping, enslavement and rape all in a package. Charming. I guess Mr. Winger hasn't read this passage either. I could go on, but what's the point. Apologists will just keep on lying in an attempt to justify and explain away those passages in the Bible which are abhorrent to modern sensibilities.
Who commanded to spare the virgin
😂😂😂 Leviticus 25 verses 41-46 Forgot about these huh?
No sex outside of marriage huh? So what about Jacob?
Do you know that Biblically, a "concubine" was a woman you were married to, but with lesser inheritance rights?
@Retha F false
So due to poverty and not race…then slavery was cool in biblical times.
Why not go the full way and justify slavery and indentured servitude today, as long as it is in line with these 'biblical' laws? If these laws are from God then it's all good right??
Religious fundamentalism is dangerous and an afront to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Leviticus 25:44-46 proves you wrong.
Are you reading the bible through rose tinted glasses?
What's your problem?
@@jonathantshibula9627 I don't have a problem. What problem do you think I have?
He’s reading the Bible word for word in the cultural context of the time. Your question is overly critical instead of reading the Bible properly. Gods laws are against slavery and servants are not slaves as we use them. Accept it.
@@kennethanderson8770 In the bible, there are rules for obtaining slaves and taking slaves from neighbouring contries is perfectly permissable and you can pass them on to your decendents because they are your property. You can beat your slaves as much as you want and, unless they die within two days, you cannot be punished. I wonder if you would be ok with being a slave under the rules set out in exodus?
If he is reading the bible word for word in the cultural context of the time, then doesn't that mean that the bible isn't accurate if what was meant then doesn't hold true now?
@@asianhippy exodus 21:16 if anyone kidnaps a person and sells them or has them in their possession or buys them they shall be put to death. So to answer your question reading it word for word in context proves it’s not slavery like you want to argue it is. The people being bought and sold both Hebrew and from the surrounding lands were selling themselves under contract for a period of time agreed upon by both the servant and master. The master pays the poor person’s debt and the person works for him for set amount of time as based on the contract. They could be passed on to the next generation if there contract spans that amount of time or they loved the master and wanted to work for him all his life. Which is clear in the texts. Plus there are laws laid out so that the servant must have food clothes and shelter provided by the master. The servant could marry into the family, could be adopted into the family, if a woman servant married the master she got full wifely status and privileges, And the law you’re misusing is for the prevention of abuse. If there is abuse the servant goes free and the owner is left with the loss of money and servant. If a servant runs away from the master and someone comes across them that person MUST NOT return them to the master as there’s clear abuse. To answer your other question absolutely at that time I would want to be a servant under Hebrew law as all other servants or slaves had no rights whatsoever and I could get all my debt paid off for food shelter and cloths. All I have to do is work. You cherry pick verses use them out of context and completely ignore all the other rules laid out in the full documents of the law and ignore the culture at the time. Just like atheist ignore the laws against rape in the OT which was punishable by death, or when Israelites spared virgin in the wars, it was to save the innocent as the sexually active women used sex to lure Hebrew men to false idolatry as it was part of their religion and were judged for it. The virgins did not do anything like that and were spared and rules were in place so they were not abused. Gods laws were revolutionary at the time beyond even what we see today in non-western countries. So you’re completely ignoring the truth because of your overly critical biased.
The Bible clearly discusses two kinds of slavery. Hebrew slaves were in service for a period of years, but non-Hebrew slaves (typically war captives, which could be male or female, adult or child) could be owned for life (there was no 7-year manumission for them), sold off, etc. And, even with a Hebrew slave, if the owner provided a wife to the slave, the offspring would be born slaves, property of the owner.
Your just making an argument you heard not what you’ve actually read
@@Debating_Truth You are mistaken, as I have read about it. See, e.g. Leviticus 25:45-46 stating that you make non-Hebrew slaves, slaves "for life" and give them to your children as inherited property. It says expressly that you cannot rule over fellow Israelites ruthlessly (or "with rigor" depending on the translation, but 'rigor' formerly meant "harshness" or "cruelty" at the time the KJV was translated), implying that one can deal ruthlessly with the non-Hebrew slaves.
@@Pandaemoni Numbers 15:15-16
The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord: 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you.”
This is why you don’t blindly listen to Athiest on the internet repent you foolish troll
@@Debating_Truth Numbers is giving a general rule for how one *presents offerings to God* (Read Numbers 15:13-14. Leviticus is giving a specific in the particular case of slave ownership and treatment. Even if we assume (incorrectly) that Numbers applies to all of the Judaic law (it doesn't), in Judaic law, the specific beats the generic in the context of its specific circumstances (in fact that's true in most written legal traditions).
In that case, a non-Hebrew person living in the land ALSO could buy slaves under the same rules as Israelite slave holders, because we're presuming Numbers 15:15-16 says the same rules apply to them...but that includes the rules regarding slavery given in Leviticus 25:45-46 (which I point out, just like Numbers 15, are the words spoken by God to Moses):
(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. (46) And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
In my reading both Leviticus and Numbers are correct...in your reading God said slaves could be slaves for life and that no they could not? Did God change his mind between Leviticus and Numbers? Obviously not, the mind of God is unchangeable. The correct reading is therefore the one where both passages are true, and that is one whether Numbers does not contradict Leviticus.
Do not assume I am an Atheist. I'm just a more careful reader than you.
Why is Zarathustra a far greater prophet than any prophet in the Bible including Jesus? Because Zarathustra unequivocally claimed all forms of slavery and bondage are evil. And he said this long before any of these biblical prophets lived. He said this without hesitation unlike Jesus or any of the other prophets of the Bible.
It’s 2023 and you still have people arguing there’s forms of slavery that are okay and not evil and they then laughably claim to be authorities on morality 😅😅😅😅
Also, praise Mazda that Cyrus the Great was a worshipper of Ahura Mazda and not Yahweh because if he had, he would have slaughtered and/or continued the slavery of the people of Judah when he conquered Babylon.
But again, Cyrus the Great followed Zarathustra, a real prophet, and Cyrus set the people of Judah who were enslaved by the Babylonians free.
Praise Mazda that he is a far more reasonable and sane God than Yahweh
A question, does this Zarathustra have anything to do with the Zarathustra of Fredrick Nietzsche?
@@yoyodude-aoe2726 yes and no. Yes the character is based off of Zarathustra the historical figure but no it’s not a representation of Zarathustra actual doctrine but rather Nietzsche giving his own philosophy through a fictional character of Zarathustra.
But Nietzsche did have a profound love and respect for Zarathustra saying this “[...] but because of the more important fact that Zarathustra was the most truthful of thinkers. In his teaching alone is truthfulness upheld as the highest virtue - that is to say, as the reverse of the cowardice of the " idealist " who takes to his heels at the sight of reality. Zarathustra has more pluck in his body than all other thinkers put together. To tell the truth and to aim straight : that is the first Persian virtue. Have I made myself clear? . . . The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite - in me - that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth.”
Zarathustra is a scammer LoL Persian Empire had lots of slaves.
@@Doctor_Fate5 Zarathustra is a scammer is such a lazy rebuttal and how the Persian empire ruled vs what Zarathustra taught are two different things much like how the kings of Israel ruled vs what the prophets of Israel taught are two different things.
Try again friend 🙂
the Holy Spirit is moving evidently in this man :) this is the truth. i want to study OT more so i can preach like u
This man is a liar. If slavery was so nice, why did god free his people from being slaves in Egypt?
juan c. rios
Because they were never really slaves in Egypt. Archaeology has proven that to be a lie. Jews on the other hand really did keep non Jews as slaves for life. Mike is a liar.
It's quite easy to preach like him, just lie about what the bible says and make it say whatever you want.
Wow. This is a ridiculous obfuscation of what the Bible says.
Wow, This is a ridiculous obfuscation of how I misrepresent what the Bible says. FTFY
@@freegracerevival so god left the topic of owning human beings and beating them open to interpretation?
@@zynnfindo4776 continues to misrepresent
@@freegracerevival the Bible explicitly condones owning other human beings and physically disciplining them. The only contention is the severity. How is that a misrepresentation? Clarification would be appreciated.
@@freegracerevival hello?
I’m not sure how anyone can defend the atrocities in the Bible with a clear conscience.
Simple, look at the context and don’t let the atheists twist it to suit their own views.
@@Nameless-pt6oj No amount of context can ever make it acceptable to consider another human being as property.
@@Nameless-pt6oj ok, so what context makes owning another person morally right?
@@charlestownsend9280 Like prison system
The quickest way to get a Christian to lie is to ask them about slavery in the Bible. Always quick, always reliable.
Bible “thinker”? 😂😂😂
It was only Indentured servitude for the Israelite males!
Everyone else got the ball&chain for life...
Stop lying, and making excuses for Biblical Slavery!
Oxymoron: Honest Apologist
You lie and you know it.
It is absolutely incredible that there can be such a large amount of blind people being stupid enough so as to say "thanks Mike for the explanation." It should infuriate anyone who can have at least a little bit of reasoning.
Explain
@@lizbeth6203
Biblical slavery was almost indistinguishable from Antebellum Chattel Slavery. The sheer levels of dishonesty exhibited by winger are astounding 😡
Amen. Thank you.
Why don't intellectually responsible Christians simply say:
"Yes the Bible does seem to support---or at very least NOT condemn---certain immoral things in places, BUT... I, as a Christian, am big enough to admit that Christianity is based upon faith and not upon an infallible book... the Bible was written to satisfy man's ideas of what man thought Gods ideas were at certain points in history."
That way, you are being open and honest to yourself and others, while maintaining respectability.
Excuses excuses excuses. Is he wearing tap dancing shoes?
You should stop trying to lie about the bible
Welcome... To lying for Jeebus!!! Leave your IQ at the door!
Boom. I’ve been refuted.
@@MikeWinger Actual you have ! But you will still go lying at worst or being disingenuous at best.
@@MikeWinger Very telling that you reply to this comment and IGNORE ALL THE OTHERS showing you Leveticus 25.
@@sanjeevgig8918 are you a Christian
Wrong kidnapping and slavery are not the same
So you believe slavery is voluntary
Winger, you need to stop lying!!
Mike, we love you for helping us love the Lord God. Thank you.
If you're like me, comments like those won't man too much to you (and they shouldn't!). More valuably, you and your family will remain in my prayers.
@@heather2538 If you speak multiple languages, you'd understand that slavery, servant, underling etc. are sometimes the same in different languages.
I'm wary of people who cannot see things outside of their historical and cultural context.
@@heather2538 I cannot reason with you. You already have your mind in a particular way. Incidentally, I'm of African descent and in a post colonial society and I don't see it as you do. That's ok. We can agree to disagree. And, by the way, I came to thinking this way looooong before even thinking of Christianity.
@@heather2538 I'm a professional translator. Words have different meanings at different times and different places. Paul also calls himself a slave of Christ. The authors of the bible do not defend slavery. When I was a student of history, we studied slavery and it became quite clear that "slavery" as a term means nothing unless we know the conditions and rights (yes, rights) of the slave. It's not a monolithic term, dear.
@@heather2538 no, I'm not argumentative like that. My best friend of many years is atheist. One thing I learnt from him is that even you read religious books from centuries ago, just like when someone makes an ambiguous statement, there are many ways to interpret it. Words on a page are objective facts (they are what they are). When we don't know what they mean and come to a firm belief in what they mean, it's really a reflection of what is in the inside or us and not necessarily what the author means. Basically things like these aren't the subject of argument. Because of your context and past experiences and education, they will reflect who you are. The same for me. So no, I won't argue about that. The apostle Paul and Moses don't need me to defend them. Our beliefs about this section of the Bible reflect who we are. I can't argue with you about that. Why should I? You are entitled to your beliefs and that's ok.
@@heather2538 And even then we'd only be assuming, because the person might not be speaking in terms in harmony with his or her cultural context.
I'm have got fat with the COVID-19 restrictions last year had me working at home. How has it been for you?
This one of the most ridiculous explanations of biblical slavery I have ever seen or heard.
nonsense
Slavery is not ok no matter how much you try and sugarcoat it.
May God bless you.