Let's cut to the chase. The Bible condones and promotes chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is defined as "the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work. Another definition is: "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude." Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones chattel slavery. "44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 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." Under Mosaic law, foreign slaves were chattel slaves. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The treatment of foreign slaves was every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. The issue you raise about the Bible and slavery is a difficult and important one. It's true that passages like Leviticus 25 are vexatious when viewed through a modern lens, especially considering the clear reference to ownership and inheritance of slaves. This is part of a broader conversation about how historical texts, including religious scriptures, were written within particular cultural and social contexts that were vastly different from our own. In the case of Leviticus and other Old Testament texts, the practice of slavery described was part of ancient systems, and the term "slavery" at the time may have had different meanings than what we understand today. While chattel slavery, as we recognize it from more recent history (including the Antebellum South), does share certain characteristics with biblical slavery, the two are not necessarily identical in every way. The Hebrew Scriptures also included regulations meant to protect the dignity and rights of slaves in some cases, even though these protections were limited by modern standards. Notwithstanding , my musings, I am not a Christian, and firmly believe that the initial version of the Bible given to Black people was drafted for the benefit of the colonizers. We must remember, that each Bible is a "Version" and not the original text.
@@bookify9991 "While chattel slavery, as we recognize it from more recent history (including the Antebellum South), does share certain characteristics with biblical slavery, the two are not necessarily identical in every way." Nope. As I explained, the enslavement of non-Hebrews under Mosaic law satisfies the criteria for what we consider chattel slavery today. "The Hebrew Scriptures also included regulations meant to protect the dignity and rights of slaves in some cases" Not in the case of non-Hebrew slaves. Again, I already explained this. "We must remember, that each Bible is a "Version" and not the original text." Therefore what?
@@cygnusustus Thank you for your comment. My goal in examining texts like Bible Defence of Slavery is to explore how historical ideologies shaped them, not to endorse them. The Bible reflects the norms of its time, including systems like slavery, which were later misused to justify atrocities like the transatlantic slave trade. While Leviticus 25 does mention slavery, it’s essential to read such passages critically and in context. Historical systems of slavery differed across cultures, and equating Mosaic law directly with modern chattel slavery oversimplifies the issue. That said, understanding how these texts were used to justify oppression helps us challenge those narratives today.
@@bookify9991 I accept your concession that the Bible condones chattel slavery. "While Leviticus 25 does mention slavery, it’s essential to read such passages critically and in context. " In what context is chattel slavery moral? "equating Mosaic law directly with modern chattel slavery oversimplifies the issue" How so? Please explain the difference between chattel slavery under Mosaic law, and chattel slavery in the Antebellum South.
@@bookify9991 How much more clear can it get? There is no commandment that says “Thou shalt not own another human being as property”. Owning a slave is not a sin. Exodus 21 tells you where to buy slaves, how long you can keep them for, how you can treat them, etc. Anybody who tries to twist the meaning of this knows it is immoral to own slaves and wants to falsely defend the Bible. For example, there is absolutely no mention of the words “indentured servitude” in the Bible, but apologist will swear that is what it means. In any case, that is STILL owning another human being as property. It doesn’t matter if they were treated nice or were let go after some years…slavery is slavery no matter how much you try to sugarcoat it. The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children, whereas Hebrew slaves were treated as servants, and were released after six years of service or the occurrence of a jubilee year.
Let's cut to the chase.
The Bible condones and promotes chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery is defined as "the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work. Another definition is: "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude."
Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones chattel slavery.
"44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
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."
Under Mosaic law, foreign slaves were chattel slaves. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The treatment of foreign slaves was every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. The issue you raise about the Bible and slavery is a difficult and important one. It's true that passages like Leviticus 25 are vexatious when viewed through a modern lens, especially considering the clear reference to ownership and inheritance of slaves. This is part of a broader conversation about how historical texts, including religious scriptures, were written within particular cultural and social contexts that were vastly different from our own.
In the case of Leviticus and other Old Testament texts, the practice of slavery described was part of ancient systems, and the term "slavery" at the time may have had different meanings than what we understand today. While chattel slavery, as we recognize it from more recent history (including the Antebellum South), does share certain characteristics with biblical slavery, the two are not necessarily identical in every way. The Hebrew Scriptures also included regulations meant to protect the dignity and rights of slaves in some cases, even though these protections were limited by modern standards. Notwithstanding , my musings, I am not a Christian, and firmly believe that the initial version of the Bible given to Black people was drafted for the benefit of the colonizers. We must remember, that each Bible is a "Version" and not the original text.
@@bookify9991
"While chattel slavery, as we recognize it from more recent history (including the Antebellum South), does share certain characteristics with biblical slavery, the two are not necessarily identical in every way."
Nope.
As I explained, the enslavement of non-Hebrews under Mosaic law satisfies the criteria for what we consider chattel slavery today.
"The Hebrew Scriptures also included regulations meant to protect the dignity and rights of slaves in some cases"
Not in the case of non-Hebrew slaves. Again, I already explained this.
"We must remember, that each Bible is a "Version" and not the original text."
Therefore what?
@@cygnusustus Thank you for your comment. My goal in examining texts like Bible Defence of Slavery is to explore how historical ideologies shaped them, not to endorse them. The Bible reflects the norms of its time, including systems like slavery, which were later misused to justify atrocities like the transatlantic slave trade.
While Leviticus 25 does mention slavery, it’s essential to read such passages critically and in context. Historical systems of slavery differed across cultures, and equating Mosaic law directly with modern chattel slavery oversimplifies the issue. That said, understanding how these texts were used to justify oppression helps us challenge those narratives today.
@@bookify9991
I accept your concession that the Bible condones chattel slavery.
"While Leviticus 25 does mention slavery, it’s essential to read such passages critically and in context. "
In what context is chattel slavery moral?
"equating Mosaic law directly with modern chattel slavery oversimplifies the issue"
How so? Please explain the difference between chattel slavery under Mosaic law, and chattel slavery in the Antebellum South.
@@bookify9991 How much more clear can it get? There is no commandment that says “Thou shalt not own another human being as property”. Owning a slave is not a sin. Exodus 21 tells you where to buy slaves, how long you can keep them for, how you can treat them, etc. Anybody who tries to twist the meaning of this knows it is immoral to own slaves and wants to falsely defend the Bible. For example, there is absolutely no mention of the words “indentured servitude” in the Bible, but apologist will swear that is what it means. In any case, that is STILL owning another human being as property. It doesn’t matter if they were treated nice or were let go after some years…slavery is slavery no matter how much you try to sugarcoat it. The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children, whereas Hebrew slaves were treated as servants, and were released after six years of service or the occurrence of a jubilee year.