Slavery & the Bible
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- In this episode Brian Auten & Chad Gross discuss the topic of slavery in the Bible. Did the Bible condone slavery? A wide-ranging discussion.
This week’s book reading discussed:
1:54 - Peter J. Williams’ book: Can We Trust the Gospels?
a315.co/3EHH8ic
2:25 - C. S. Lewis - A Life: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet
a315.co/3va7hTA
3:01 - Frank Turek’s Hollywood Heroes
a315.co/37GQ0IW
5:48 - Mailbag question: Molinism, Provisionism, and crossing the streams… and Tim Stratton’s response
9:10 - Tim Stratton’s book: Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Philosophical Analysis
a315.co/3EPYc5S
10:00 - Introduction to the topic of slavery and the Bible
13:51 - Peter J. William’s talk: Does the Bible Promote Slavery?
a315.co/3xQbRZg
13:58 - Defining what slavery is…
17:30 - Distinctions in meanings; translation differences
27:19 - John Mark Reynolds article on slavery in the Apologetics Study Bible for Students
a315.co/3ELekFO
37:50 - Racial slavery: does the Bible condone it?
41:40 - Some take-aways
Recommended resources on Slavery and Old Testament ethics:
• Against All Gods: What’s Right and Wrong with the New Atheism by John Mark Reynolds and Phillip Johnson
a315.co/36MO29y
• Christianity On Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett
a315.co/3EGeY7p
• Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan
a315.co/3xQ6CII
• God Behaving Badly by David Lamb
a315.co/39esjrU
We welcome your feedback!
If you have a question or comment for the podcast, record it and send it our way using www.speakpipe.com/Apologetics315 or you can email us at podcast@apologetics315.com
#apologetics, #christianity, #slavery
Leviticus 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.
There you go. The bible endorses slavery, which sounds very similar to the slavery the US of A had.
yep. but let them lie about it, it all helps the number of atheists on the planet grow, but don't tell christians, they are so dumb they haven't worked it out yet that EVERYTHING they do just throws more dirt on the grave of religion - or voodoo to give it it's proper title.
I got interested in this subject a number of years ago and dove in deep for a well researched answer. And what I found is that it's actually a really good question.
I agree completely that this is a complicated subject that requires a lot of reading. But I disagree with a lot of what you said. So what I mean by slavery to answer your question is, a person owned as property for their entire lives along with any children born to them. Pretty much the definition of chattel slavery. I'm not so hung about the rules around it (although that's an interesting conversation for sure), than the fact of it. And in that respect, the Bible does in fact condone slavery. Which is completely separate from indentured servitude. And indentured servitude is not my issue at all. Slavery is.
So I'm sorry, but the Ancient Hebrew word "ebed" can mean, servant, subject, maid, cook, or chattel slave. It just depends on who you're talking about. If you're talking about someone you own as property for their entire lives, then the correct translation is "slave" for sure. And the Bible does talk about these people. They talk about all the others as well, but that doesn't mean that there isn't slavery in the Bible that is condoned. If that were the case then the Hebrews weren't really slaves in Egypt.
You keep saying that people misused the Bible to validate slavery. But I didn't hear any real reasons as to how it was misused?
And for me, I'm not looking for God to immediately eliminate and outlaw slavery. I think there are fair arguments for not doing that (especially in the NT). What I don't understand is why God didn't at least tell us that it was wrong, immoral, a sin or against His will. If there had been that at a minimum, then no one throughout the rest of history could have held up the Bible in a bid to justify slavery. Instead we get Leviticus 25:44-46 which says;
"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. 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 you property. You may bequeath them to you 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"
And this is chattel slavery plain and simple. And this is the Bible condoning it. Owning people as property for their entire lives, along with any children born to them. And I have read Copans book on this before you ask.
It's passages like this that are the clear and real problem. And yet it's a passage that you never brought up once in your whole 44 minute discussion on what the Bible has to say about slavery? The clearest and most direct passage where the Bible condones it doesn't get even 1 minute of discussion? Why?
And I agree that the Bible does not condone slavery based on race. But they didn't even really have a concept of race back then. That's a more modern construction. Not like there were a lot of Chinese or Mexicans wandering around ancient Israel. But personally I don't care. I mean it's not like slavery NOT based on race is ok is it? If not, then what's the point in even bringing it up? I've never understood that argument.
Good points.
To say that they didn't have a concept of race is flatly wrong. Their concept of race was just different than ours. They wouldn't say white of black, but they absolutely would think of their nation as a race based upon biological relationships.
Empires were mixed race/nations, but that is not a lack of their conception of it.
@@georgechristiansen6785 They didn't have a concept of race as we use that word today. To them, what they had was tribalism. A different people. A different nation. A different God. That was their version of "race". But this video talked about race based slavery in America, using the modern understanding of race. And saying that was not Biblical slavery was. Well sure. I was simply pointing out that this was not even possible back then. So what's the point?
And empires in the OT were most certainly not mixed race nations. The world was a much smaller place back then. So to raise race in our modern usage and apply it to the OT is simply wrong. It didn't exist. And that is what this video did. As some sort of excuse for the actual slavery in the Bible. No matter what it was based on.
@@nickbrasing8786
They absolutely did have a concept of race. it was simply more specific than ours currently is.
Their "tribalism" was based solely upon shared biology. That is nothing more than race by another name. Others living among their "tribe" were not considered part of it regardless of their level of participation in it because they were biologically different.
The other parts you mention are a different issue.
The video, like most takes on the Atlantic Slave trade, is simply wrong. It was NOT race based. They were not chosen as slaves because they were black Africans and being black African didn't somehow make you slave material.
Those slaves were black because they were what was available to purchase from the black African slavers who sold them to the white non-Africans who never actually enslaved anyone themselves.
Race often came into play in how people viewed blacks AND other whites of the time, but even those who may have thought that blacks or anyone else were "inferior" to the didn't use that as the justification for having them as slaves. Otherwise there would have been no free blacks in the countries that were doing business in the Atlantic slave trade.
You are correct that there simply was no scriptural justification for forcing abolition to be the law of the land. Those who argue there is are reading into the scriptures what is simple not there.
lol, you're fooling no one but yourself, and the other religists of course. god is an evil psychopath who ordered genocide and ordered the taking of slaves and you're just liars.
@@georgechristiansen6785 more bollocks. you people can really tell a good lie eh?
Biblical slavery was almost indistinguishable from Chattel slavery so I find it highly disconcerting that Christians reconcile the former as "moral" whilst immediately recognising the latter for the filth it was.
This is what happens when you assess situations and verses through the perspective of theological rose tinted spectacles fashioned from your own specific cultural and religious indoctrination or background.
"Biblical slavery was almost indistinguishable from Chattel slavery".....What is your definition of chattel, and what is distinguishably different between your understanding of chattel slavery and Biblical slavery?
@@GuessWhoAsks People are owned as property against their will, they are unable to leave and can be bought and sold.
As for differences, biblical slavery gave the master the implicite right to just "take" female slaves 🤮
@@GuessWhoAsks Chattel slaves are bound into slavery forever. People are seen as property. This does not change. They’re slaves, their children, children's children etc. are all slaves for all times. Chattel slavery is what occurred in America. There was also indentured servitude. Most of the time slaves were referred to as chattel as it adds an air of legitimacy.
@@Bugsy0333 Hi Mike, I appreciate you sharing your understanding of the term. Would you mind if I offered some clarification to make sure there is no misunderstanding, as I am not disagreeing with you, but seems like you are adding some extra/unwarranted stuff onto the term? Chattel slavery only refers to treating people like property. It does not offer a timeframe of limit or length in the description. The term does not reference your children. The term only refers to when one human is no longer considered to have personhood but is instead considered the property of another human. As you pointed out there is at least one other type of slavery that we could reference to show another form of slavery that the bible allowed. Debt slavery or indentured servitude is different in that the debt slave is not considered property, but I would argue that it is still immoral. We just need to be sure to make the distiction in order to know what we are talking about with our terminology
I still do not know why trump bellend thinks biblical slavery is distinguishable from chattel slavery, which was the reason I was asking him to provide their definition of chattel.
religists have to lie otherwise it's clear god is as bad as any human, and for people who can actually use their brain, work out that god is human, a human invention designed to make genocide and slavery legit so the horrible people who pretend to be loving can in fact take the odd sex slave. "it's not really sex, it's not really slavery" they fool only themselves (and i suspect not even that).
Just to clarify the semantics for you, whilst it is correct that the hebrew word Ebed is very ambiguous and carries a range of meanings including servant. Ebed is used for both situtations. It derives from the word "abad" which is cognate to the Arabic "abd
meaning _one who is subordinated as a slave or a servant_
The Greeks however had no such confusion with their words and had seperate words for servant and slave. so I think it telling that the septuagint uses the word doulos 300 times , and there is no ambiguity about this word as doulos literal means slave , " one who is owned" . So at least it is clear what the translators in the 3rd century BC thought the meaning was. And this is the bible that *jesus* is thought to have quoted from hmmm?. 🤔🤔🤔
oh and just a side point for you , the bible uses precisely the SAME WORDS to discribe slavery in Exodus 21 21 as it does for the Israelites slavery in Eygpt 🤔 so look on the bright side. Maybe those Israelites in Egypt really had a nice happy clappy relationship with the Egyptians, you know more like a *"contract worker"*
Infact I'm surprised God was so thoughtless as want to split up such a friendly productive social system at all aren't you ?? 😜😜😜
For free people hired as workers to do a temporary job for pay, the Greeks had other words such as "ergato" (see the parable of the hired workers in the vineyard in Matthew 20) or "diakonos". Doulos was always an unfree slave who had no liberty. We also have biblical examples of doulos being used literally (eph: 6,5 col: 4,1).