"Dashing babies on the rocks? You have to understand, babies were different at the time. Much more dashable. It wasn't infanticide like you think of it today."
Typical. All you're doing is quote mining to support your agenda and you don't have a fucking clue about the context of the passage you're alluding to.
It always amazes me how apologists can spend their time defending slavery, genocide, misogyny, capital punishment for victimless crimes, hell doctrines, human sacrifice, massacres and rape, but never look in the mirror and say "are we the bad guys?"
Earth is hell. Only way out is ignore "family" or "god" (both same ai) tricking you to come back here. Go to the void. Be Aware of the fake void. There is nothing in the void. B4nn3d information.
Sorry, I can see what you are trying to say, but saying people defend these things is freaking wild and interpreting things the most disingenous way possible. People believe this things happened, not that they were right or wrong, and if God did indeed create life he can as well take it. The only sort of valid thing you said was the slavery, the misogyny and the "hell doctrine", which to be honest, I see what you are trying to say, but in my opinion are not as bad like you put it.
@@LucasTF you are delusional. You cant see how world works and that "lord" of this earth hellrealm is evilsickfk. Also minion tr33mäsöns. Lil psycho controllers. I bet you cant understand what they are doing with whäkaziines and skytripes, huh?
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn However, if one is to simply say, "I don't understand", when reading passages about permanent ownership of non-Jewish slaves; and permission to almost beat them to death, it is a moral failure not to condemn the immoral ideas that the ancient Israelites promoted when they created their "holy" scriptures, the Tanakh (aka: the Hebrew bible).
When confronted with the "God didn't permit slavery, He governed the practice and gave it strict rules" argument, I always remember that God does not "moderate" or "govern" the sin of coveting--he expressly condemns it. Why did He not do the same in the text?
Hey,...that god commanded the tribes people of Moses to stone the old man into oblivion for collecting sticks on the Sabbath That's all you need to know
Good observation. If you replace slavery with another crime like grape, you can easily see how it's just as immoral if not more so to govern its practice.
@@jessewhite2879 Nothing makes it right of course...that's why we are saying it, just shows how god isn't giving any divine orders to anyone ..it's all from humans who know the value off a good slave
What I find both disgusting and endlessly hilarious is that, rather than just admit that the scriptures regarding slavery and genocide were written by Human men who used God to justify their desire to have slaves and to murder their neighbors for their land, they instead prefer to engage in mental gymnastics to protect their idolatrous fantasy of an "infallible" and "inerrant" Bible (which doctrine didn't even exist until around the middle of the 19th century). Of course, if they ever admitted that men did indeed put their own opinions and prejudices into scripture, they would be forced to acknowledge that certain things in The Bible attributed to God might indeed not have come from God at all, and might be the product of the opinions, societal traditions, and prejudicial views of the times in which they were written.
That whole movement that decided the Bible was inerrant and infallible created a big issue because they forget how much is poetry, allegory, etc. I think of it as a conversation between God and humans but we only get to hear our side of the conversation including all the bits where someone misheard or misunderstood something they were told.
Possession by ownership vs possession by debt contract. You need a better dictionary. It was possession by debt contract, hence redemption by Redeemer of (fin&sin) debt.
@@9432515 Liar. It was not possession by debt contract for non-Hebrew slaves. Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones life-long 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."
I absolutely understand the mental gymnastics by apogetics on the issue of slavery. It's a key load-bearing concept. Unless you can convince yourself that the Bible doesn't say what it says, you either have to support slavery, which we mostly now consider abhorrent-though some forms of slavery still exist in the developing world as well as things like convict labor and human trafficking in the developed world-or you have to admit the Bible isn't infallible and univocal and everything becomes up for negotiation. Both of those concepts are very difficult to reconcile for people with lifelong robust dogmas.
Thanks, Dan. As it happens, I was just doing some research on slavery in the Bible precisely because it was used as a justification for slavery in the United States. This is extremely helpful.
@@marknieuweboer8099 It should be noted that at the time, abolitionists argued that salvery in the antebellum South was unbiblical. Of course, that is because the bible can be used to argue anything and the opposite. It's just a matter of finding the "right" verse.
That would make 250 years at best, ie seventeen Centuries after Jesus died. The point remains - it would have been nice if christians "concluded" that many centuries before.
If you use your thumb, you can hide the full definition of redemption and possession. That helps. Possession is NOT automatically possession by ownership, but also possession by debt contract. And that’s what this was, hence redemption by Redeemer Christ of the world (fin&sin).
Christians need to understand this is moral relativism there is no society ever where slavery "wasn't that bad". There's a kernel of truth to the idea the transatlantic slave trade was maybe more brutal for the average slave than slavery in the ancient world, but that's really not saying much. There were roman slaves that lived relatively comfortable lives, but that was if you were lucky. Any slave in the ancient Mediterranean world could be beaten, r worded or just worked to death with usually no consequences for the master.
The question I always want to ask when someone says biblical slavery wasn't like old south slavery is, "So slavery would be OK today as long as we followed the biblical rules?" I really would like to hear their answer.
I’ve seen some apologists argue that so long as a slave master is kind to their slave, it’s okay. Then when I ask them if they’d be willing to be enslaved to a kind master, they usually stop responding.
Yes and not really thinking through any if this himself. He’s not clever enough to build an obfuscative apologist argument on his own. This is just something he is parroting from other apologists and acting as if it’s just apparent in the text.
Because they want to use the morals and laws of the Bible in today's world. If they can't explain away the slavery (and other horrors) then they can't make the argument that the Bible is valid in modern life.
There is an obvious question, which we must ask every time this subject arises (and that is often). Is he simply a poor naive dupe who has been brainwashed or is he a deliberate liar. Those are the only two options.
The planet was proven to be round (-ish) a long time ago. How it that some people still think it's flat? People are stupid, Ben. All of us. Education helps but I've seen many well educated people fall for stupid conspiracies and cults. This guy makes a good point, I think. ua-cam.com/video/OXp1CQA8YDw/v-deo.html
At this point refuting the lies of apologists is getting tyresome, since they just repeat the same lies over and over expecting people defending the truth to just get tired and leave.
That’s why some are so keen on banning books and tightly controlling the information that people are allowed to receive. It’s so much easier to shape a person’s perception if you can deny them opportunity to hear any alternative. Which is how THEY themselves were formed.
@@Noneya5555 Do you go to mental asylums to check if the people in there claiming to be God are God? Or is wasting your time only a good thing when the other side does it? 🙄
They say it’s more humane than now because it makes it easier for them to excuse it. How does god allowing slaves to be beaten seem more humane?! It just makes no sense and they refuse to see it.
Is that what he is trying to say. He lost me when he stated that ethnicity and race are different things without saying what the difference is or what is the significance of the difference between enslaving persons of a different ethnicity versus those of a different race.
@@MMG-q1v I copied this from a website. “Race refers to the concept of dividing people into groups on the basis of various sets of physical characteristics and the process of ascribing social meaning to those groups. Ethnicity describes the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs.” At least up to the time of William the Conqueror the Scotts, the Welsh and the English used to enslave each other. Same race, different ethnicity.
Probably because if they accept that ANY part is unacceptable, they have to examine EVERY part, and they don't want to do that. How could they then maintain their prejudices?
@@byrondickens "Why can't atheists accept that "Christians" aren't all one monolithic bloc?" They're not? I would LOVE to see an appreciatively large bloc of Christians tell these slavery apologists (And there's plenty of apologists to choose from) that they're wrong. When atheists see that happening more frequently, maybe atheists will acknowledge that.
@@byrondickens I was a christian who started as a fundamentalist and over the course of 30 years transitioned to a very liberal christian and eventually left religion altogether. I guess that my question was a little rhetorical. I realize that not all Christians are alike. Obviously Dan is a Christian.
i recently had a facebook conversation with someone who said if the bible calls it sin, it's sin, end of story. When I posited that maybe a book that condones slavery wouldn't be the best moral guide in all circumstances, I got the standard, "the Bible does not condone slavery." So I quoted Leviticus, linking to several different bibles online. The response? "Well, the bible doesn't call slavery a sin, so my original point stands." 🤣🤣🤣
Mental gymnastics to make it okay. I realized after leaving Christianity how much most Christian’s lack compassion for other people… all because of a book.
WRT the discussion about the progressive law @8:10, Dr. Josh argues that it is not so progressive and actually has little to do with slavery but rather international diplomacy, or lack thereof, in that Israel was not to assist the surrounding nations by returning their slaves but rather would weaken them by facilitating their loss of slaves who escaped. Thus the benefit to the escaped foreign slave was a mere windfall from Israel's being a bad neighbour.
...again. This is not the first time Dan has had to go up against another content creator who refuses to acknowledge the difference between debt servant and slave.
Hey Dan love the videos! Would love to chat with you sometime. I would love to hear the parts of Christianity you affirm. Most of your content is correcting inaccuracies so I am always curious about what is left once the dogma is removed. Keep making the great content your friend in San Antonio Texas Ricky
I'm also very curious. I can't help but feel that the arguments Dan makes seem to confirm my skeptical biases about the Bible, Christianity and faith in general, yet he claims to be and is often described as a practicing Mormon. Fascinating apparent contradiction.
He *doesn't* believe the bible to be Gods word, that an eyewitness of Jesus wrote a book in the Nt, that Moses wrote a book in our bibles or that Jesus got resurrected and went to heaven. He doesn't believe that God of the Bible is Almighty, he believes there are false prophecies in the bible, he also doesn't believe Jesus is God. He even believes Yhwh has a God above Him and that the bibles are not monotheistic. There isnt much you can believe anymore and for sure no belief that the historical Jesus would have accepted.
@@leom6343 I think you are confusing the views of Dr McClellan on what the bible says or what can be proven, with his personal faith. One person may believe that the bible does not claim that Jesus is god, and still personally believe that Jesus is god. There is a difference there.
@@meej33 everything I mentioned I have from Dan. He also believes God lies in the bible. And scholars generally agree that Jesus is not God based on the bible and history, they don't say the bible doesn't claim he is God as if there is still an option he could be God. Even books with highest christology do not view Jesus as the supreme God Almighty. So my point is what remains to believe in? Basically nothing. I mean scholars like Dan and their work are the reason I don't believe in the bible or Xtianity.
Oh god, I hate it when they bring up the Atlantic Slave Trade. People really don't understand American slavery or what race and ethnicity really mean and their distinction. Even in this comments section. Seeing people argue over the ethics and motivations of my ancestor's enslavement is really bizarre. It was chattal slavery, what else is there to say? They were considered property, they were not considered persons. The bible was literally used to endorse it back when it was around. Apologists are wack as hell.
@@thedude9941 We probably need to bear in mind that the people who developed the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, particularly in the IS, had no problem with enslavement or subjugation of non-white people.
@maklelan2902 Think you misspoke at 6:32. You said if the servant dies after a day or two....no punishment. The verse states that the servant "Gets Up", not dies.
Not really drj. This verse goes to intent. If the person dies the same day as the beating, then it's determined that the master intended to kill him and he is avenged. If he dies after a couple of days, then it's determined that his intent was not to kill him, so there is no punishment since the slave is his property. You have to look at both 20 and 21 here.
I am always stunned, despite long experience, by the immorality of apologists. I leave aside slavery, which is totally unjustifiable whatever its form, to concentrate on indurent servitude. It is abominable to force human beings to sell one of their own or to sell themselves even for a limited period.
Probably the most interesting thing about contemporary defense of biblical slavery is that it illustrates a far more disturbing reality. If the bible is the divine word of a god, but can be that horribly misinterpreted for that long, by that many people, it's worthless. Not even 200 years ago we had A US Senator standing on the floor of the US senate declaring _Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible. I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation. Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments, in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized - sanctioned everywhere._ Jefferson Davis. It's not as though he was alone either. So what changed? The book? Nope!
The only thing that makes atheists more angry than people interpreting the Bible to support bigotry and divisiveness is people interpreting the Bible to support inclusiveness and unity.
I don't get why people are constantly trying to do this. Why can't people just be intelligent enough to admit that, it was a different time, the past sucked, and learn from their mistakes..
Well said. This tactic is hands down one of the easiest arguments used when they say...."How can I follow a God that (inserts this proof text)......" Ignorance at it's finest. And these very "arguments" are in this comment section. Smh.
Here’s why: to refute the notion of the unerring truth and current relevance of the Bible would require them to rethink their entire world view. If those who use those arguments to form their political and personal philosophy of life in the 21st century would shut that down, we could move on.
Religious apologists should understand how harmful and ridiculous they are and appear in trying to justify the horrors of the bible. Keep them honest Dan!!
This apologist probably believes that morality is objective and Biblical. So he should advocate indentured servitude. Even if I accept, just for the sake of argument, that his explanations are correct I think his Biblical morals depraved.
You mean the one where the alleged "Palestinians" ( they're really Arabs) enjoy the rights of a democratic nation that NONE of the other empires that controlled the area before extended to them?
Some pple say that when jesus referred to the Canaanite woman as a dog, that he didn't mean dog , rather he was testing her faith and that. Also that Jews used to refer to non Jews as dogs but not in a bad way, could you explain?
The first thing I do after watching one of Dan's videos, is jump to the comments section to read the sheer and utter nonsense posted by religious believers who attempt - and fail - to impugn the scholarship. Personally, if I find that, in order to maintain my belief, I have to ignore the truth, then that's a sure sign that I need to let go of that belief.
I'm more interested in Dan's opinions on fantastic miracles in the bible and whether they're fictitious or true. A good indication of the capacity of rational thought and grounding in reality. Important for any historian or scholar. It's not a side issue.
How does this factor in with the rules about treating the foreigner well? When they first get there you’re welcoming and when they’re settled then you make slaves out of them? How do foreigners get to be in this awful predicament?
They can be sold by their families into it, or they could become slaves because of debt. Same as anyone really, except of course a native Israelite male. And the provisions to treat the foreigner well are obviously referring to free foreigners and not slaves.
It's like there's a standard explanation to justify Biblical slavery. I hear the same basic points over and over from different defenders. This guy just did a good job of explaining it susinctly.
Greetings, Christian teenager here, I'd like to respond to these claims and how I interpret them through my own research: First claim being that foreigners were only eligible for chattel slavery. This claim is wrong,- - and as seen in verse such as Exodus 21:2, Israelites could also become slaves. Although,- - it doesnt necessarily say the word "property" we see throughout the rest of the Old Testament- - that foreigners were treated as well as locals, here are some verses: exodus 23:9,22:1,25:46,22:1,Dueteronomy 27:19,Leviticus 19:34, It it clear then that someone referred to as property isnt treated any poorer. And the word "property" can be rather seen as persons value of labour Now some still see this as ethical targeting, due to different regulations (not poorer compared to Israelities) including yourself, but you have to remember that- Israelities, locals, and Judahites were all held by communal and religious bonds, all whom were- - all freed from oppression and captivation by God. Thus, were more obedient and trustful. Foreigners on the other hand, were not known, but least to say that they were treated poorly, as- - seen by verses above. Knowing this, foreigners couldn't be fully trusted, but despite that, they would still be treated in the same manner as Israelities.- - To substantiate my point, as we see God does not show partiality, and makes it clear that if anyone harms a slave, they are to be held against the judgement - Exodus 21:12-35 covers this. Second claim being that slaves were absolutely forced into labour- As seen by daughter being- - sold by men to master which says that she is not to go free. If you read this verse hoping that it will endorse forced labour then it will. But knowing everything else, it would be clear- - that it doesnt imply that they were held against their will. As in context, you would know that the sale of a daughter as a servant was often a voluntary arrangment made by the family due to financial difficulties or for the sake of beneficial marriage for the daughter. Plus, their legal protections and of all the other slaves further supports this point, for it wouldnt - make sense for them to be treated so well but forgeting about their own free will and they want. Also, as seen later, we see pregnant woman projected as servant, from which we can conclude that- - servant refers to more of a housewife Going back to beneficial part of that verse, being that it would allow them then to have a well- - established life where they (females) could reprocreate, but again, NOT having to, if against their will. Third claim being that slavery in no shape or form whatsoever being to do with debt slavery, which- -is wrong. Knowing the historical context of slavery back then, as you said yourself, debt slavery was indeed a factual thing, but at the top of that, we have verses which indicate that would also be the case with foreigners and Israelites: Exodus 22:2-3, Leviticus 25:39, Deuteronomy 15:12 Again, reason why Israelites are not slaves but servants is because God freed them, so it wouldnt make sense for them to be slaves again, which God was very much against , as seen by his wrath and the plagues send on ruthless masters of Israelites. Foreigners are considered slaves, stil- -to be treated as servants (Israelites) but to be called slaves due to not knowing them. Now the word "punish" in Exodus 21:20-21 which in hebrew is "naqam" doesnt explicitely means murder, but rather revenge, which we could argue or not could be of the same infliction or worse - - depending on God's judgement and his will. But knowing God's nature presented by the - Old Testament, we would conclude that God would judge that person in a way that wouldn't attract anyone to do so as well - so possibly murder. "Death penalty" (or similar) not being included here- - would show judicial process, by which if the beating of slave was appropriate, say in case of- - them trying to harm someone as well, would be up to God's judgement, which is why it isnt- - death but accordingly judgement. This verse, doesnt draw distinction between Israelites or- -foreigners, showing God impartiality Hope this is somewhat readable and understandable as I am not really into apologetics or good at english whatsover :P
One of the biggest points you failed to address that makes your interpretation most likely wrong is the distinction between israelite slaves and foreign slave is that it says to treat israelite enslaved as not a eved but to treat them as a sachir. But for the foreign slave it says they are a eved. The Bible makes very clear distinctions. This alone makes Dan interpretation more likely then yours. It's is pretty clear from the words used that debt slaves are israelites and are to be treated as hired help while foreign slaves are pretty close to chattel slavery. Also claiming a person as a value of labor not property is nonsense they are enslaved. Debt slaves are a thing but it's very clear only for israelite slaves. Foreign slaves are not. Foe example Leviticus 25 is very clear on the difference between foreigner and israelite slave. Makes multiple rules on how israelite slaves can go free but very specificly states how you can own a foreign slave for life.
@@Alexander-the-Mediocre The terms "eved" and "sachir" have different connotations, but that doesn't automatically imply a difference in the fundamental nature of their servitude. Even though Bible DOES make distinctions between Israelites and foreigners, but these distinctions often relate to legal and social obligations rather than the inherent nature of their status as servants or slaves. For example, while Israelites are referred to as "sachir" (hired workers), it doesn’t necessarily mean they were treated better in every respect; instead, it reflects their unique covenantal status and the obligations other Israelites had toward them. And as I previously have shown in my comment, both foreigners and Israelites had same opportunities and were seen as equal - see my verses for inference 👍
@@guttenman foreigners that are free treated well is not the same as foreigner slaves being treated well. So maybe a free foreigner would have some opportunities but this is irrelevant to foreign slaves. Leviticus 25:46 Foreign slaves can be owned for life and can be inherented. Lol the next verse is about if a foreigner becomes rich and buys a israelite slave all the rules about having to let them be redeemed. Funny that it's only very specificly talks about how israelite slaves can be redeemed but says foreign slaves can be owned for life and inherented. So is it equal that an israelite can own a foreign slave for life but a wealthy foreigner can't own an israelite slave for life? So no foreign slaves do not have the same opportunity as israelite slaves. It is not equal. You error was equating free foreigners with foreigner slaves.
@@Alexander-the-Mediocre Let me make it a bit clearer: The Exodus story illustrates how the Israelites were chosen by God and freed from oppression to become a distinct people. This foundational event set them apart from other nations, establishing them under a special covenant with God. Consequently, the laws given to the Israelites, including those about slavery, reflect their unique status and relationship with God, which was not intended to be the same as that of other nations. The laws governing foreign slaves were different because they were designed to regulate existing practices rather than reflect the same moral and ethical standards given to Israelites. The distinction was meant to uphold the unique role and identity of the Israelites as God's covenant people. Thus, the different treatment of Israelites and foreigners under these laws underscores the broader purpose of the covenant-to set the Israelites apart from other nations and fulfill God's plan for them. The Exodus and the subsequent laws served to maintain this distinction and guide the Israelites according to their special status and divine purpose.
@@guttenman yeah and if you look at that from a scholarly veiwpoint and not a dogmatic veiw point all your really giving me is excuses for oppressing and treating others as less because of ethnicity. Israelite are special by divine right so that's justification to enslave foreign children for life. Claiming divine right pops up throughout history and it's how many people justified terrible actions to foreigners or enemies. Israelite and foreigners can't be held to the same standards so Israelites have to be treated a certain way when enslaved but foreigners are basically chattel slaves and that's fine cause Israelite have special status to God. In the end all you doing is justifing slavery of foreigners by saying they aren't special.
The protections for the 'Men' as it appears in these laws are meant for the 'B'ney Ysrael' or Sons of Israel, and not the foreign chattel. The foreign slave, for instance, is not covered by talionic justice.
The original "influencer" sounds so sure of themselves that I'm leaning heavily toward them knowingly stating falsehoods, not unknowingly passing on incorrect information.
The information is freely out there at this point. there is no excuse for them being this ignorant. I therefore believe that they choose to lie or that by insuring they do not know they commit an intentional lie of omission.
Chattel slavery is based on the "Gentile slavery" from the Bible., just as indentured servitude was based on the "Hebrew slavery" of the Bible. Trying to defend slavery, Biblical or otherwise, is indeed a "Lost Cause". Just saying "Nuh-uh" is not a defense. It is denial.
You don't understand Dan, slaves long ago made millions of dollars playing games they loved and could leave at any time they wanted without going to jail or being put to death just like pro athletes today.
The two most prominent apologists defending biblical chattel slavery for non-Jews in the ancient Kingdom of Israel are Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, and Christian academic, William Lane Craig.
I would say lately you see more clips of Turek and Cliff than anything else. Two of the worst on the subject frankly. Which says a lot about the state of apologetics today frankly.
It needs to keep being said, these apologetics also rely on the general ignorance on modern laws and recent history: In the US, debt slavery was _also_ practiced during antebellum times typically for non-black people (for example: paying off passage to the New World was a thing, as was tricking sharecroppers into owing farm owners a debt by debiting expenses against them without their knowledge so that they had to effectively become indentured slaves), however _debt slavery is now a crime_ - you cannot compel labour to pay off a debt, it will come with either a fine of $5000 or up to five years in prison or both for people who get caught trying that nonsense. Chattel slavery _is_ illegal, but not a crime in the US. You cannot go to prison or be fined for it (they'll likely use other charges to do that though - kidnapping, false imprisonment, etc). *It was a thing up until the 1940s that southern states would imprison people for black coded crimes, then (because the government is still allowed to enslave convicted prisoners) sell the prisoner to private organisations as indentured workers, and those private organisations would then get off scott-free when they were caught because it's not debt slavery, it's chattel slavery - and the government gave them the prisoner, so it's not even kidnapping or false imprisonment - and then the prisoner would get released only to immediately be recaptured for being unemployed without their former employer's permission (one of those aforementioned black coded crimes) and go right back into the system.* Essentially, the argument "it's not the bad thing, it's this other thing you don't really think about *which we punish worse than the bad thing* so it's fine" is a shitty argument. All of it is exploitation. And that's _before_ we even engage with the fact that _both_ could be sexual slaves.
When Jacob moved his family to Egypt during the great famine of that time, it was for their own protection and survival. 70+ members of that family became over a million or so in the 400 years they were in Egypt. Why do you suppose God allowed Joseph to be sold into slavery by his brothers and rise to authority in Egypt? To protect the linage from which Christ was to come and to allow Jacob’s descendants to multiply so they could represent God to the world. God had His hand on His people even during slavery, for their protection.
It's definitely telling that being sentence to slavery in the mines was considered equivalent to a death sentence. It was called *damnatio ad metallum* by the Romans. Ancient slavery wasn't racialized, but it was still incredibly horrible.
@@meej33 "Rowing at the galleys was reportedly not a picnic either." But they were paid, as I understand. Paid mercenaries had a strong motive to maintain discipline in battle in hopes of winning and actually being paid, as opposed to slaves that would be more motivated to look for a means of escape and jump ship the moment the galley's hull took damage.
This creator is enthusiastically confident his argument is persuasive with a certain mind set while his nonverbal behaviors tells me he doesn't believe what he is saying. For whom does he perform and why? He is not an apologists, but rather some modern version of a courtesan seeking to have influence and power.
1:39 - also, its probably worth noting that American slavery has its roots in the Atlantic slave trade, where slaves were bought in Africa and transported across to the Americas, and the slaves in the African slave trade were Africans being caught and sold by other Africans to European slave traders. Naturally this means the slave trade was dominated by black slaves because that's pretty much all the slavers had to enslave. If Africa had had a wider variety of skin colours, then there likely would've been a wider variety being enslaved and still being slaves in America, and consequently Americans would've concocted some other reason to discriminate and try to justify the slavery than just skin colour (although even then, from the One Drop rule, I can't imagine they'd have treated white African slaves any better than they did black slaves).
You are wrong about the kidnapping: it was a capital offense and this completely changes the comparison to African slaves in the US: under Mosaic law there'd be none. Also the characterization that runaways being granted sanctuary only applying if from other countries is problematic: give them sanctuary so they can be later denied sanctuary. In real world terms the scholars you cite are lacking. IOW there's no practical reason why they wouldn't be abusive to foreign escapees if the future owner had the right to abuse. Is it your understanding that those who publicly announce they don't want to be freed, and having the aul ceremony, only apply to hebrews?
Just curious - Am I the only one who is, when listening to these content creators who Dan checks, or when reading the comments of religious apologists who follow his channels, reminded of the movie Idiocracy? 🤣
Does the Bible condones slavery? No, at least not in the way you think it is. Here are three reasons why. First, the Bible teaches that all human beings have equal value. Presuming some human beings are less valuable than others because of their appearance, their beliefs, or their ethnicity is, of course, an unbiblical concept. The Bible teaches that every human is valuable for one reason: Each is made in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” God’s image in you makes you valuable regardless of the color of your skin, your religion, or where you were born. That intrinsic, transcendent value and worth of every human being is undermined by slavery since it causes violence to image bearers. Second, the Bible reformed slavery. The Old Testament Law does allow for slavery of sorts. Remember, slavery was around long before the Mosaic Law-and every country practiced it-so, the Bible didn’t start slavery. It also didn’t end it, because that wasn’t the Law’s purpose. Instead, the Law improved conditions of a practice already in place. Slavery in the Bible was not like slavery was in the United States. For example, when a Hebrew man or woman found themselves in financial hardship, they had the option to “sell” themselves into servitude. Several laws in Exodus and Leviticus were meant to protect those indentured servants. For example, Exodus 21:2 says that in the seventh year of service, all such male slaves “shall go out as a free man without payment.” (Female slaves could also be redeemed or simply go free for nothing if they weren’t provided for properly-21:7-11). Leviticus 25:39-40 says these “slaves” were to be treated as “a hired man, as if he were a sojourner.” Verse 43 says, “You shall not rule over him with severity.” The Bible does allow for something more closely resembling chattel slavery. In Leviticus 25, after Israel’s conquest of Canaan, God allowed the Hebrews to take slaves from the remaining Canaanites. Notice the instructions were given under specific circumstances, though. One sign of conquering a people group was to take captive and enslave the survivors. The instructions in Leviticus were to a specific group of people at a specific time in history regarding a specific event. This is hardly an endorsement of slavery today, never mind what occurred during the North American slave trade. In fact, Exodus 21:16 explicitly prohibits the kidnapping and selling of human beings: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” The New Testament also addresses slavery. Ephesians 6:9 instructs slave owners to “give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.” Colossians 4:1 is similar: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.” In both instances, Paul instructs slave owners to remember to treat their slaves well because they also have a Master in heaven. The Mosaic Law was not written to justify slavery. Instead, the Bible improved on a flawed human system by granting basic rights to servants and slaves and restricting how masters were to treat them. This important detail is usually overlooked by critics. It was historically unprecedented for a slave to have any rights. Outside of Israel, slaves had no rights at all. Under God’s Law, though, slaves had the right to marry (Ex. 21:3) and the right to food and clothing (Ex. 21:10). God also restricted the punishment a master could impose on a slave (Ex. 21:20, 26-27). Instead of condoning slavery, the Bible reformed slavery as an institution. But there’s more. Third, the Bible ultimately liberates all slaves. No, Jesus and the apostles didn’t condemn slavery outright. They didn’t have to. Instead, they let the gospel do that work, which is better than any law or political policy because it produces changed hearts. Everyplace Christianity takes a firm hold on culture, slavery is eventually eliminated. Abolition is rooted in the biblical teaching that all men are created in the image of God and are therefore equal in value and worth. The Bible provides grounds for antislavery laws by prohibiting kidnapping (Ex. 21:16, 1 Tim. 1:8-10). The Bible teaches slaves are truly our brothers (Philem. 1:16). Best of all, Jesus offers true spiritual freedom to every human being of every tribe and every tongue. Slavery in the Old Testament Law Slave ownership was a common practice long before the time the Mosaic Law was given. So, the law neither instituted slavery nor ended it; rather, the law regulated it. It gave instructions on how slaves should be treated but did not outlaw slavery altogether. *Hebrews with Hebrew slaves.* The law allowed for Hebrew men and women to sell themselves into slavery to another Hebrew. They could only serve for six years, however. In the seventh year, they were to be set free (Exodus 21:2). This arrangement amounted to what we might call indentured servanthood. And the slaves were to be treated well: “Do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you” (Leviticus 25:39-40). The law also specified that, “when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). The freed slave had the option of staying with his master and becoming a “servant for life” (Exodus 21:5-6). *Hebrews with Gentile slaves.* When the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan, they were to drive out or destroy all the former inhabitants. However, that order was not fully obeyed, and many Gentiles remained in the land. God allowed the Hebrews to take slaves from among that population: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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” (Leviticus 25:44-46). So, the law did allow for slavery. Several laws regulating slavery appear in Exodus 21. These laws gave some basic rights to slaves and curtailed the actions of masters in a historically unprecedented way. In the ancient world outside of Israel, slaves had no rights. But God’s Law extended to slaves the right to keep a wife (verse 3), the right not to be sold to foreigners (verse 8), the right to be adopted into a family by marriage (verse 9), and the right to food and clothing (verse 10). The law also limited masters in their use of corporeal punishment (verses 20, 26-27). *Gentiles with Hebrew slaves.* Under the Mosaic Law, and if economic circumstances demanded it, a Hebrew had the option of selling himself as a slave to a Gentile living in Israel (Leviticus 25:47). The law also provided for the slave’s redemption at any time (verses 48-52). And the treatment of the Hebrew slave was to be considerate: slaves were “to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly” (verse 53). If no redemption came, the slaves were still released, with their families, on the Year of Jubilee (verse 54). New Testament Instruction on Slavery Even in the New Testament era, the Bible did not demand that every slave owner immediately emancipate his slaves. Rather, the apostles gave instructions to slaves and their owners on godly behavior within that social system. Masters were admonished on the proper treatment of their slaves. For example, in Ephesians 6:9 masters are told, “Treat your slaves in the same way [with goodwill]. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” Elsewhere, the command is, “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1). Jesus and the apostles did not outright condemn slavery. They didn’t need to. The effect of the gospel is that lives are changed, one by one, and those changed lives in turn bring transformation to entire families, clans, and cultures. Christianity was never designed to be a political movement, but, over time, it naturally affected political policy. Alexander MacLaren wrote that the gospel “meddles directly with no political or social arrangements, but lays down principles which will profoundly affect these, and leaves them to soak into the general mind” (The Expositor’s Bible, vol. VI, Eerdmans, 1940, p. 301). In nations where Christianity spread and took firm hold, slavery was brought to an end through the efforts of born-again individuals. The seeds of the emancipation of slaves are in the Bible, which teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27), which condemns those who kidnap and sell a person (Exodus 21:16; cf. 1 Timothy 1:8-10), and which shows that a slave can truly be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). Some criticize the Bible because it did not demand an immediate overthrow of every ingrained, centuries-old sinful custom of the day. But, as Warren Wiersbe pointed out, “The Lord chooses to change people and society gradually, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the proclamation of the truth of the Word of God” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, David C. Cook, 2007, p. 245).
What a load of crap, right from the beginning “First, the Bible teaches that all human beings have equal value.” Tell that to gay, trans, or queer people regularly abused & denied rights by “right-thinking Christians” apparently they read a different bible than you. Tell that to the people supposedly killed in the flood. Wiped out all but 8 people, including the just conceived? Not even the unborn had value in god’s eyes. The entire Hebrew bible is about how they are god’s chosen and therefore of more value than anyone else. And right through the current times Christians shifted that to them being the chosen people and if you aren’t Christian you are of lesser value.
@@GrumpiestKevinThe global flood of Noah’s day was the direct judgment of a just God. The Bible says the flood wiped out “people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds”-everything that breathed air (Genesis 7:23). Some people today are offended by the flood story, saying it is proof of God’s injustice, arbitrariness, or just plain meanness. They accuse the Bible of promoting a temperamental God who judges indiscriminately and say that only a bully would drown everyone, including children and all those innocent animals. Such attacks on the character of God are nothing new. As long as there have been sinners in the world, there have been charges that God is unjust. Consider Adam’s subtle shifting of blame. When asked about eating the forbidden fruit, Adam said, “The woman you put here with me-she gave me some fruit” (Genesis 3:12). That is, it was the woman’s fault, and God’s, since He made the woman. But blaming God did not mitigate Adam’s sin. And calling God “unjust” for sending the flood will not lessen ours. The flood of Noah’s day has many counterparts in history. God judged the people of Canaan with a command to wipe them out (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). He similarly judged Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineveh (Nahum 1:14), and Tyre (Ezekiel 26:4). And the final judgment before the Great White Throne will result in all the wicked from all time being cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). The plain message of the Bible is that God does judge sin, whether by an invading army, by fire and brimstone, or by a catastrophic global flood. *The flood was just because God commanded it (and God is just).* “The LORD is upright . . . and there is no wickedness in him” (Psalm 92:15). “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of [God’s] throne” (Psalm 89:14). God always does what is right. His decrees and judgments are always just. If He decreed that the whole world be flooded, then He was just in doing so, no matter what human skeptics say. It is not surprising that we tend to define justice in a way that will benefit ourselves. *The flood was just because mankind was evil.* “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). We cannot fully imagine the extent of the wickedness of that day. We have never seen the like. The evil was “great,” and every thought of everyone’s heart was *only* evil *continually.* There was no goodness in the world; every person was wholly corrupted. There was nothing within them that was not evil. The people of Noah’s day were not dabblers in sin; they had taken the plunge, and *everything* they did was an abomination. The text provides some clues as to the extent of the evil before the flood. One problem was the rampant violence: “The earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence” (Genesis 6:11). The descendants of Cain, the first murderer, were abounding in bloodshed. Another evil among the antediluvians was occult sexuality. Genesis 6:1-4 mentions the Nephilim, “heroes of old, men of renown” who were the products of a union between fallen angels and human woman. The demons who participated in this sin are currently in “chains of darkness . . . reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). The people who participated-and the Nephilim themselves-were destroyed in the flood. The biblical description of pre-flood humanity is that they had become totally hardened and beyond repentance. Things were so bad that “the Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled” (Genesis 6:6). But what about the children who drowned? The fact is that sin affects *all* of society, not just those who intentionally engage in evil. When a society promotes abortion, babies die as a result. When a father or mother begins taking meth, their children will suffer as a result. And, in the case of Noah’s generation, when a culture gives itself over to violence and aberrant sexuality, the children suffered. Humanity brought the flood upon themselves and upon their own children. The flood was just because *all* sin is a capital offense. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). We should not be shocked that God swept away the world’s population with the flood; we should be shocked that He hasn’t done something similar to us! Sinners tend to have a light view of sin, but all sin is worthy of death. We take God’s mercy for granted, as if we deserve it, but we complain about God’s justice as if it’s somehow unfair, as if we *don’t* deserve it. *The flood was just because the Creator has the right to do as He pleases with His creation.* As the potter can do whatever he wants with the clay on his wheel, so God has the right to do as He pleases with the work of His own hands. “The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths” (Psalm 135:6). Here is the most amazing part of the flood story: “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). God’s grace extended into His damaged, sin-stained creation and preserved one man and his family. In so doing, God preserved the whole human race through the godly line of Seth. And, in bringing the animals into the ark, God also preserved the rest of His creation. So, God’s judgment was not a total annihilation; it was a reset. As always, God’s judgment in Noah’s time was accompanied by grace. The Lord is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. *Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished”* (Exodus 34:6-7, emphasis added). God would rather the wicked repent and live (Ezekiel 18:23). God delayed judgment on the Amorites for four hundred years (Genesis 15:16). God would have spared Sodom for the sake of even ten righteous people dwelling there (Genesis 18:32). But, eventually, His judgment must fall. It took Noah up to a hundred years to build the ark. We can assume that, if other people had wanted to board the ark and be saved, they could have done so. But that would have required faith. Once God shut the door, it was too late; they had lost their chance (Genesis 7:16). The point is that God never sends judgment without prior warning. As commentator Matthew Henry said, “None are punished by the justice of God, but those who hate to be reformed by the grace of God.” The global flood of Noah’s day was a just punishment of sin. Those who say the flood was unjust probably don’t like the idea of judgment to begin with. The story of Noah is a vivid reminder that, like it or not, there is another judgment coming: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37). Are you ready, or will you be swept away?
@@GrumpiestKevinAll people, regardless of their story, are deeply and unconditionally loved by God, each created with profound dignity and worth, not one more than another. This is more than mere religious happy talk - it’s truth whether one is gay, straight, or otherwise. But, all people are also stricken with a terminal illness: sin. Everyone. No exceptions and to the same degree. Our sin demands our repentance and needs forgiveness, and God’s love and grace are where we find both. This is basic Christianity and the great equalizer of all people.
All people, regardless of their story, are deeply and unconditionally loved by God, each created with profound dignity and worth, not one more than another. This is more than mere religious happy talk - it’s truth whether one is gay, straight, or otherwise. But, all people are also stricken with a terminal illness: sin. Everyone. No exceptions and to the same degree. Our sin demands our repentance and needs forgiveness, and God’s love and grace are where we find both. This is basic Christianity and the great equalizer of all people.
The global flood of Noah’s day was the direct judgment of a just God. The Bible says the flood wiped out “people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds”-everything that breathed air (Genesis 7:23). Some people today are offended by the flood story, saying it is proof of God’s injustice, arbitrariness, or just plain meanness. They accuse the Bible of promoting a temperamental God who judges indiscriminately and say that only a bully would drown everyone, including children and all those innocent animals. Such attacks on the character of God are nothing new. As long as there have been sinners in the world, there have been charges that God is unjust. Consider Adam’s subtle shifting of blame. When asked about eating the forbidden fruit, Adam said, “The woman you put here with me-she gave me some fruit” (Genesis 3:12). That is, it was the woman’s fault, and God’s, since He made the woman. But blaming God did not mitigate Adam’s sin. And calling God “unjust” for sending the flood will not lessen ours. The flood of Noah’s day has many counterparts in history. God judged the people of Canaan with a command to wipe them out (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). He similarly judged Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineveh (Nahum 1:14), and Tyre (Ezekiel 26:4). And the final judgment before the Great White Throne will result in all the wicked from all time being cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). The plain message of the Bible is that God does judge sin, whether by an invading army, by fire and brimstone, or by a catastrophic global flood. *The flood was just because God commanded it (and God is just).* “The LORD is upright . . . and there is no wickedness in him” (Psalm 92:15). “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of [God’s] throne” (Psalm 89:14). God always does what is right. His decrees and judgments are always just. If He decreed that the whole world be flooded, then He was just in doing so, no matter what human skeptics say. It is not surprising that we tend to define justice in a way that will benefit ourselves. *The flood was just because mankind was evil.* “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). We cannot fully imagine the extent of the wickedness of that day. We have never seen the like. The evil was “great,” and every thought of everyone’s heart was *only* evil *continually.* There was no goodness in the world; every person was wholly corrupted. There was nothing within them that was not evil. The people of Noah’s day were not dabblers in sin; they had taken the plunge, and *everything* they did was an abomination. The text provides some clues as to the extent of the evil before the flood. One problem was the rampant violence: “The earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence” (Genesis 6:11). The descendants of Cain, the first murderer, were abounding in bloodshed. Another evil among the antediluvians was occult sexuality. Genesis 6:1-4 mentions the Nephilim, “heroes of old, men of renown” who were the products of a union between fallen angels and human woman. The demons who participated in this sin are currently in “chains of darkness . . . reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). The people who participated-and the Nephilim themselves-were destroyed in the flood. The biblical description of pre-flood humanity is that they had become totally hardened and beyond repentance. Things were so bad that “the Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled” (Genesis 6:6). But what about the children who drowned? The fact is that sin affects *all* of society, not just those who intentionally engage in evil. When a society promotes abortion, babies die as a result. When a father or mother begins taking meth, their children will suffer as a result. And, in the case of Noah’s generation, when a culture gives itself over to violence and aberrant sexuality, the children suffered. Humanity brought the flood upon themselves and upon their own children. The flood was just because *all* sin is a capital offense. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). We should not be shocked that God swept away the world’s population with the flood; we should be shocked that He hasn’t done something similar to us! Sinners tend to have a light view of sin, but all sin is worthy of death. We take God’s mercy for granted, as if we deserve it, but we complain about God’s justice as if it’s somehow unfair, as if we *don’t* deserve it. *The flood was just because the Creator has the right to do as He pleases with His creation.* As the potter can do whatever he wants with the clay on his wheel, so God has the right to do as He pleases with the work of His own hands. “The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths” (Psalm 135:6). Here is the most amazing part of the flood story: “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). God’s grace extended into His damaged, sin-stained creation and preserved one man and his family. In so doing, God preserved the whole human race through the godly line of Seth. And, in bringing the animals into the ark, God also preserved the rest of His creation. So, God’s judgment was not a total annihilation; it was a reset. As always, God’s judgment in Noah’s time was accompanied by grace. The Lord is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. *Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished”* (Exodus 34:6-7, emphasis added). God would rather the wicked repent and live (Ezekiel 18:23). God delayed judgment on the Amorites for four hundred years (Genesis 15:16). God would have spared Sodom for the sake of even ten righteous people dwelling there (Genesis 18:32). But, eventually, His judgment must fall. It took Noah up to a hundred years to build the ark. We can assume that, if other people had wanted to board the ark and be saved, they could have done so. But that would have required faith. Once God shut the door, it was too late; they had lost their chance (Genesis 7:16). The point is that God never sends judgment without prior warning. As commentator Matthew Henry said, “None are punished by the justice of God, but those who hate to be reformed by the grace of God.” The global flood of Noah’s day was a just punishment of sin. Those who say the flood was unjust probably don’t like the idea of judgment to begin with. The story of Noah is a vivid reminder that, like it or not, there is another judgment coming: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37). Are you ready, or will you be swept away?
TL;DR The god of the Bible condoned slavery and promulgated rules about how to conduct it as part of the law codes documented in the Old Testament. Jesus and the Apostles had an opportunity to correct those laws but failed to do so, leading us to conclude that slavery is acceptable to the biblical god. OLD TESTAMENT In the OT a distinction is made between Israelite and non-Israelite slaves and between debt and chattel slavery. It is the Israelite debt slaves (“indentured servants”) that can go free after six or seven years and who are the ones apologists point to when defending the slavery of the Bible. But non-Israelite slavery also existed in ancient Israel, condoned and regulated by the various legal codes in the text. Both Israelite men and women held slaves (Genesis 16:1). Yahweh-El had the opportunity to help Hagar in her flight from Abram and Sarai, but instead commanded her to return into servitude. Whether these stories represent actual people is doubtful, but the fact remains that the biblical deity revokes her manumission. Where did the Israelites get their slaves? They were permitted to participate in the intertribal slave trade by Leviticus 25:44-46. This serves, incidentally, as a loophole to Exodus 21:16, which forbids kidnapping: the slaves being purchased were kidnapped by someone else. Slaves could also be taken in battle. In Deuteronomy 20:10-15 the Israelites are commanded by Moses on behalf of Yahweh-El to take as spoils of war the women and children of any city that actively opposed them. In Deuteronomy 21:10-14 sexual slavery and genocidal rape is condoned: women from opposing tribes, now captives of war, are taken advantage of with no means of recourse or self-defense. A woman could also be sold into sexual slavery by the (typically) impoverished head of her household with the understanding that she would eventually become one of the wives of the owner. Her role would be to breed more slaves. This taking of multiple wives is recorded throughout the OT. According to Exodus 21:1-4, part of the Covenant Code of laws given to Moses by Yahweh-El on Mount Sinai, a slave could be born into servitude. If a master gave a slave a wife and she bore him children, the slave could later go free, but the wife and children must remain with the master as his property. Exodus 21:6 gives instructions on how to make an Israelite’s enslavement permanent. Demonstrating the difference in status between free persons and slaves, someone who deliberately kills a free person is to be put to death (Exodus 21:12), but merely “punished” if they similarly beat their slave to immediate death; however, the slave owner may go unpunished if the beaten slave survives for a day or two “for he is his property” (Exodus 21:21). Bear in mind that this is the law code Yahweh-El is delivering to the Israelites-the previous chapter of Exodus contains the Ten Commandments. Male Israelite slaves would be freed after six years of service (Exodus 21:2), but Israelite daughters and non-Israelite slaves were excluded from this form of automatic manumission (Exodus 21:7). On the other hand, Deuteronomy 15:12 says that both male and female slaves are to be set free after six years so we have a contradiction in the biblical god’s instructions to its people. NEW TESTAMENT In the NT, slavery is glorified albeit in a metaphorical sense (Matthew 20:27). Paul exhorted slaves to remain obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Titus 2:9-10). Peter wrote similarly in 1 Peter 2:18. In Colossians 4:1 Paul instructed slave owners to be kind to their slaves, instead of commanding them to be freed. The key takeaway is that Jesus, the purported son of The biblical god, didn’t see fit to explicitly disclaim or countermand these pro-slavery laws. SUMMARY Slavery-in both its debt and chattel forms-was a part of life in the ancient Middle East. The Israelite law codes said to come from their tribal god condoned this slavery and promulgated rules on its commission. If the god of the Bible were truly omnipotent, it could have forbidden slavery outright, but instead thought it more important to regulate what people ate and the fabrics they could wear. CURRENT STUDIES See Catherine Hezser’s _Jewish Slavery in Antiquity_ for information about the Jewish practice of slavery in Greek and Roman times.
@@diogeneslamp8004 God did not condone slavery, he gave us free will and the hebrew laws and customs were man made, laws around owning made life difficult for owners, is this condoning?
@@berniefynn6623 Have you read your Bible? In Deuteronomy 10 Yahweh-El gives Moses the Ten Commandments and goes into a lengthy discussion of how the Israelites should live their lives, including how to take women and children captives. In Exodus 20 we repeat the law-giving except this time in the following chapter there’s a discussion of how spaces can be beaten without fear of punishment, how daughters can be dole into slavery, and so on. From the text this is clearly Yahweh-El commanding Moses to promulgate these laws. God is condoning slavery by making laws for how to practice it and by never actually condemning it. In the Old Testament God cares more about your diet and the fabric your clothes are made from than about whether slavery is wrong.
@@diogeneslamp8004 your last sentence shows you know nothing, pigs for example are scavengers and full of disease, this is why they not to be eaten at that time and the cloth refers to a jew should not live with a non jew.
.35: no "we" don't think of the antebellum South, "you" think of this, everyone else thinks of the thousands of Icelandic, Irish, Russian, Turkish, Spanish, and long etc folk who were raided and enslaved all over the ancient and not so ancient world to keep the wheels turning. Get a grip!
@@kentstallard6512Why do you consider it irrelevant? I'm thinking the creator mentions it because he's probably American, and it's the most recent blatant example of slavery that Americans are aware of.
@@Noneya5555 For many Americans, slavery in America is the _ONLY_ form of slavery that they're aware of. A lot of Americans believe that the only other slavery taking place was in the Barbary Coast.
As to Dan’s statement that we only hear what’s on the books, as far as the Bible is concerned…that’s true; nevertheless, the Bible’s insistence on specifying certain boundaries with the maltreatment of slaves, shows that ancient Israelite elites needed to legislate against certain actual nasty behaviors existing within the Israelites.
There were already rulings how to treat slaves before the bible was written. And your point doesn't justify the fact that slaves are the property of the owner and more horrible stuff
Code of Hammurabi did it first. What’s your point? Seriously, look it up. The Code of Hammurabi is widely and freely available, you can find it online, CTRL+F “slave” and read everything. Some of it is eerily similar to Biblical laws about slavery.
@@JopJio your entire post is irrelevant to what I wrote as I never said it justifies anything, nor did I ever talk about the Bible being first. I’m also aware of the slave corpus in the ANE.
Actually, American slavery wasn’t based entirely on race. There were black slave owners for example. There could be a free black individual living down the road to a home with slaves. Eventually, race would become an argument for the continuation of the institution, but that’s where it met its demise.
Slavery in America was not initially racially motivated -- originally, it was ethnically motivated. In particular, many Irish who became destitute by a famine engineered by the English became basically chattel slaves in the colonies before the Atlantic slave trade reached North America. Once the North American colonies began receiving African slaves, the racial motivation was applied ex post facto -- the original impetus was the intersection of mercantilist greed and convenience. Spain had a few hundred years head start on the British colonies, but they also developed their racist ideological justification after the Atlantic slave trade was established. Edit: clarified some statements and fixed some spelling mistakes.
People like the Irish suffered harsh indentured servitude, but it wasn't the same as chattal slavery. There was a time limit, and it was not something that descended to their children. The nature of their contracts and how they were sold was also very different, as well as their legal status as persons. That's an important distinction. Chattal Slavery specifically in America was very much racially motivated. Chattal is the type of slavery we are generally talking about in the video, even when saying early slavery.This is particularly the case around ethnic vs race motivations, not slavery in general, as that can come in many varieties. Although honestly this is all pedantic, slavery is wrong no matter what, although I think it's disingenuous to say that the only impetus originally was greed and convenience, especially when being a chattal slave inherently make you part of someone economy, since you are automatically property of monetary value.
@@saturnhex9855 actually, the Irish didn't speak English, so they did not consent to the indentured servitude contracts -- they were generally tricked into signing the documents. Many of them were simply kidnapped and sold as slaves, and the women and girls were used as breeders with African slaves once they arrived to get them to be perpetual slaves (much like the OT law about an indentured Israelite becoming a slave to stay with his family, except that the Irish girls didn't have a choice in whether or not they were impregnated). Also, since there was a chance the Irish slaves would claim their freedom after 7 years, they were much cheaper than African slaves, and they were often mistreated even worse since their owners did not expect to keep them for more than 7 years -- many died after just a few years of malnutrition and being overworked. I did a bit more digging after my initial comment, and while the first slaves in the colonies were Irish, the African slaves arrived only a few years later. Many slave owners in the colonies had both Irish and African slaves, and the Irish slaves were treated as expendable because they were significantly cheaper. I contend that the modern concept of race was not the primary motivator because of the history of Irish slaves in America.
Actually American slavery was economically based. West Africa was where the slaves were available for the lowest price. I doubt Southern plantation owners would have cared about where they got their slaves.
Uh, because unlike you apparently, they think that slavery is wrong, especially when practiced by people who claim they were slaves themselves, and who didn't enjoy being slaves. BTW, as usual, you're deflecting. The issue is that religious believers such as yourself actively refuse to acknowledge that the God of the Bible condoned slavery. That's the issue that the posters are discussing and concerned with, which you somehow seem not to notice or understand...?
One reason is that as long as Conservative Christians wield the OT against LGBT people, then the morality of the OT is fair game. But also it’s good to be curious and educated about things, including religion.
"Europeans invented the concept of race" I know this is popular among people that think they're elite-smart, but it's dumb. Just stop. At worst Europeans picked up the concept from middle ages contact with Islam on the Iberian peninsula. Mohammed, himself a slave trader/owner, considered an Arab to be twice the value of an African. The self-proud academic will quibble around the edges about ancient concepts and whatnot, but that's all sophistry. Tribalism begat nationalism begat racism as human circles of contact expanded, all well before Europe joined an already thriving slave industry.
@@TheDanEdwards if you're going to quote me, finish the quote. Concepts of race and racism predate Portuguese involvement in the African slave trade which was already thriving through African contact with Islam.
"Dashing babies on the rocks? You have to understand, babies were different at the time. Much more dashable. It wasn't infanticide like you think of it today."
Typical. All you're doing is quote mining to support your agenda and you don't have a fucking clue about the context of the passage you're alluding to.
I feel so awful for laughing soooo hard at this
There were billboards about their dashability. What were people to do?!
Erm actually God never commanded that 🤓
I believe. Idk. Correct me if I’m wrong.
@@SHRUBBERT Planet Peterson fan?
It always amazes me how apologists can spend their time defending slavery, genocide, misogyny, capital punishment for victimless crimes, hell doctrines, human sacrifice, massacres and rape, but never look in the mirror and say "are we the bad guys?"
@Wertbag99 love and agree with everything you just stated!!
Wasn’t slavery. Lev25 is not possession by ownership but possession by debt contract, hence redemption by Redeemer Christ of all debt, fin&sin.
Earth is hell. Only way out is ignore "family" or "god" (both same ai) tricking you to come back here. Go to the void. Be Aware of the fake void. There is nothing in the void. B4nn3d information.
Sorry, I can see what you are trying to say, but saying people defend these things is freaking wild and interpreting things the most disingenous way possible. People believe this things happened, not that they were right or wrong, and if God did indeed create life he can as well take it. The only sort of valid thing you said was the slavery, the misogyny and the "hell doctrine", which to be honest, I see what you are trying to say, but in my opinion are not as bad like you put it.
@@LucasTF you are delusional. You cant see how world works and that "lord" of this earth hellrealm is evilsickfk. Also minion tr33mäsöns. Lil psycho controllers. I bet you cant understand what they are doing with whäkaziines and skytripes, huh?
as soon as someone gets *really* into apologetics it's just a question of time before they make excuses for slavery and genocide
It's absolutely necessary if one is going to defend the Bible.
@@kentstallard6512 It would be a lot easier to say, "There are some things in the bible I just don't understand."
Excuses?
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn that would be too honest for Christians.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn However, if one is to simply say, "I don't understand", when reading passages about permanent ownership of non-Jewish slaves; and permission to almost beat them to death, it is a moral failure not to condemn the immoral ideas that the ancient Israelites promoted when they created their "holy" scriptures, the Tanakh (aka: the Hebrew bible).
When confronted with the "God didn't permit slavery, He governed the practice and gave it strict rules" argument, I always remember that God does not "moderate" or "govern" the sin of coveting--he expressly condemns it. Why did He not do the same in the text?
Hey,...that god commanded the tribes people of Moses to stone the old man into oblivion for collecting sticks on the Sabbath
That's all you need to know
Good observation. If you replace slavery with another crime like grape, you can easily see how it's just as immoral if not more so to govern its practice.
That's...that's a pretty good way to think about it. Huh.
Right, like there wasn’t regulations in the American slavery too😂 doesn’t make it right lmao
@@jessewhite2879
Nothing makes it right of course...that's why we are saying it, just shows how god isn't giving any divine orders to anyone ..it's all from humans who know the value off a good slave
I wish one of the 10 Commandments was: Thou shalt not own another person as property.
Hey guy... that would be WOKE and GAY. /s
Seriously. We could ditch any of the first 4. They're useless.
What I find both disgusting and endlessly hilarious is that, rather than just admit that the scriptures regarding slavery and genocide were written by Human men who used God to justify their desire to have slaves and to murder their neighbors for their land, they instead prefer to engage in mental gymnastics to protect their idolatrous fantasy of an "infallible" and "inerrant" Bible (which doctrine didn't even exist until around the middle of the 19th century). Of course, if they ever admitted that men did indeed put their own opinions and prejudices into scripture, they would be forced to acknowledge that certain things in The Bible attributed to God might indeed not have come from God at all, and might be the product of the opinions, societal traditions, and prejudicial views of the times in which they were written.
Nailed it.
In this case, the slippery slope is not a fallacy. Once you admit not all of the Bible is from god, you must face the possibility that none of it is.
Amen! If it's OK to say that in this instance...? 🤣
That whole movement that decided the Bible was inerrant and infallible created a big issue because they forget how much is poetry, allegory, etc.
I think of it as a conversation between God and humans but we only get to hear our side of the conversation including all the bits where someone misheard or misunderstood something they were told.
@@wartgin That's about the best way I've heard it put. Absolutely.
"Don't own people."
Book of Me, 1:1.
That was easy. I must be omni-er than their god.
You’re my god now. Hail.
but Dan just owned this apologist...
ALL HAIL INWYRDN!
I would like to join your religion!
You’re the omni-est.
Owning people is always wrong.
Agreed
Go tell that to the government and the wardens of the prisons.
@@glvine3355 Inmates are not even remotely the same thing as slaves and saying we're all slaves of the government is laughable.
@@torreyintahoe i mean prisoners of war and slaves can be the same thing.
@@umetcalf Well, it's not fun being either but no, they're not the same thing.
Conflating the ownership of people as property with owning a professional sports team was so dishonest.🤦♂️
And disgusting.
Possession by ownership vs possession by debt contract. You need a better dictionary. It was possession by debt contract, hence redemption by Redeemer of (fin&sin) debt.
@@9432515 Tell me, why did you feel the need to lie?
@@9432515
Liar. It was not possession by debt contract for non-Hebrew slaves.
Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones life-long 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."
I, personally, have yet to see any religious apologetics that wasn't profoundly ignorant or profoundly deceptive
Richard Swinburne is your only chance, afaIk.
There would not be a point to denying what the Bible ✝ says, if someone was trying to be honest.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I honestly deny a lot of what the bible says
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Not as much as religious apologists.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Definitely agree
I absolutely understand the mental gymnastics by apogetics on the issue of slavery. It's a key load-bearing concept. Unless you can convince yourself that the Bible doesn't say what it says, you either have to support slavery, which we mostly now consider abhorrent-though some forms of slavery still exist in the developing world as well as things like convict labor and human trafficking in the developed world-or you have to admit the Bible isn't infallible and univocal and everything becomes up for negotiation.
Both of those concepts are very difficult to reconcile for people with lifelong robust dogmas.
Thanks, Dan. As it happens, I was just doing some research on slavery in the Bible precisely because it was used as a justification for slavery in the United States. This is extremely helpful.
Bart Ehrman also did an episode on Biblical slavery.
ua-cam.com/video/EcSSgWGHtfQ/v-deo.htmlsi=nGPjUThUFybcZjYi
Then you might want to look up Jacobus Capitein. Isn't it remarkable that only last 150 years apologists "conclude" that slavery is unBiblical?
@@marknieuweboer8099 It should be noted that at the time, abolitionists argued that salvery in the antebellum South was unbiblical. Of course, that is because the bible can be used to argue anything and the opposite. It's just a matter of finding the "right" verse.
That would make 250 years at best, ie seventeen Centuries after Jesus died. The point remains - it would have been nice if christians "concluded" that many centuries before.
If you use your thumb, you can hide the full definition of redemption and possession. That helps. Possession is NOT automatically possession by ownership, but also possession by debt contract. And that’s what this was, hence redemption by Redeemer Christ of the world (fin&sin).
Christians need to understand this is moral relativism there is no society ever where slavery "wasn't that bad". There's a kernel of truth to the idea the transatlantic slave trade was maybe more brutal for the average slave than slavery in the ancient world, but that's really not saying much. There were roman slaves that lived relatively comfortable lives, but that was if you were lucky. Any slave in the ancient Mediterranean world could be beaten, r worded or just worked to death with usually no consequences for the master.
The question I always want to ask when someone says biblical slavery wasn't like old south slavery is, "So slavery would be OK today as long as we followed the biblical rules?" I really would like to hear their answer.
I’ve seen some apologists argue that so long as a slave master is kind to their slave, it’s okay. Then when I ask them if they’d be willing to be enslaved to a kind master, they usually stop responding.
@@jackweaver1846Example?
I mean, you can hear some Republicans today arguing that slavery had some good benefits for blacks, which isn't far off from your statement.
Incredible mental gymnastics by this apologist
They're all gymnasts.
Definitely.
Yes and not really thinking through any if this himself. He’s not clever enough to build an obfuscative apologist argument on his own. This is just something he is parroting from other apologists and acting as if it’s just apparent in the text.
@@pangelsaya definitely agree. It amazes me that they talk themselves into believing what they are saying
A coping mechanism for cognitive dissonance: what he believes is moral vs what he would like to be moral but obviously is not.
Yeah no yeah, it’s still a literal endorsement of chattel slavery. How can people attempt to excuse that away?
Because they want to use the morals and laws of the Bible in today's world. If they can't explain away the slavery (and other horrors) then they can't make the argument that the Bible is valid in modern life.
they want the bible to fit their own morality so bad
...the fact that he picked a translation that uses the exact word 'slaves' and yet STILL says its not slavery
There is an obvious question, which we must ask every time this subject arises (and that is often). Is he simply a poor naive dupe who has been brainwashed or is he a deliberate liar. Those are the only two options.
He's obviously listened to Frank Turek, Sean McDowell, and WLC and thinks it is his duty to educate the rest of us.
🎯
Thank you for speaking up.
It's wild to me because it sounds like he's rationalizing and justifying slavery.
Did I get that right?
Yes - they never assert that indentured servitude is immoral too.
He is.
These are old apologetics debunked a long time ago. How is it some Christians are still using them?
Purposeful lying?
The planet was proven to be round (-ish) a long time ago. How it that some people still think it's flat?
People are stupid, Ben. All of us.
Education helps but I've seen many well educated people fall for stupid conspiracies and cults.
This guy makes a good point, I think. ua-cam.com/video/OXp1CQA8YDw/v-deo.html
Self deceit.
Thinking that if they repeat it often enough, it becomes the truth.
At this point refuting the lies of apologists is getting tyresome, since they just repeat the same lies over and over expecting people defending the truth to just get tired and leave.
That’s why some are so keen on banning books and tightly controlling the information that people are allowed to receive.
It’s so much easier to shape a person’s perception if you can deny them opportunity to hear any alternative. Which is how THEY themselves were formed.
Sounds as if you've read the posts of the apologists who follow Dan's channels and attempt to cast aspersions on the scholarship. 😄
@@Noneya5555 i've been following the multiple debates on the matter between apologists and scholars on antiquity ad the bible, yes
@@Noneya5555 Do you go to mental asylums to check if the people in there claiming to be God are God?
Or is wasting your time only a good thing when the other side does it? 🙄
Lies?
insane how people think older forms of slavery are more humane
Yes! Especially considering how brutal humanity has been throughout history.
Right! Because it's in their doctrine(from G-D) they believe it's absolutely justified smh
They say it’s more humane than now because it makes it easier for them to excuse it. How does god allowing slaves to be beaten seem more humane?! It just makes no sense and they refuse to see it.
Is that what he is trying to say. He lost me when he stated that ethnicity and race are different things without saying what the difference is or what is the significance of the difference between enslaving persons of a different ethnicity versus those of a different race.
@@MMG-q1v I copied this from a website.
“Race refers to the concept of dividing people into groups on the basis of various sets of physical characteristics and the process of ascribing social meaning to those groups. Ethnicity describes the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs.”
At least up to the time of William the Conqueror the Scotts, the Welsh and the English used to enslave each other. Same race, different ethnicity.
Man... I hate comparisons of slavery with professional athletes.
All support from india bro. You have excellent knowledge about bibical history 👍🏻👍🏻
Why can't christians just accept that some parts of their book that was written centuries ago might be unacceptable today?
Probably because if they accept that ANY part is unacceptable, they have to examine EVERY part, and they don't want to do that. How could they then maintain their prejudices?
Why can't atheists accept that "Christians" aren't all one monolithic bloc?
@@byrondickens They want to be though.
@@byrondickens "Why can't atheists accept that "Christians" aren't all one monolithic bloc?"
They're not?
I would LOVE to see an appreciatively large bloc of Christians tell these slavery apologists (And there's plenty of apologists to choose from) that they're wrong.
When atheists see that happening more frequently, maybe atheists will acknowledge that.
@@byrondickens I was a christian who started as a fundamentalist and over the course of 30 years transitioned to a very liberal christian and eventually left religion altogether. I guess that my question was a little rhetorical. I realize that not all Christians are alike. Obviously Dan is a Christian.
i recently had a facebook conversation with someone who said if the bible calls it sin, it's sin, end of story. When I posited that maybe a book that condones slavery wouldn't be the best moral guide in all circumstances, I got the standard, "the Bible does not condone slavery." So I quoted Leviticus, linking to several different bibles online. The response? "Well, the bible doesn't call slavery a sin, so my original point stands." 🤣🤣🤣
Wow
Mental gymnastics to make it okay. I realized after leaving Christianity how much most Christian’s lack compassion for other people… all because of a book.
WRT the discussion about the progressive law @8:10, Dr. Josh argues that it is not so progressive and actually has little to do with slavery but rather international diplomacy, or lack thereof, in that Israel was not to assist the surrounding nations by returning their slaves but rather would weaken them by facilitating their loss of slaves who escaped. Thus the benefit to the escaped foreign slave was a mere windfall from Israel's being a bad neighbour.
Thank you...
We definitely needed this video.
...again.
This is not the first time Dan has had to go up against another content creator who refuses to acknowledge the difference between debt servant and slave.
@@christasimon9716 people will continually need reminding it seems lol. I wish they actually paid attention.
Hey Dan love the videos! Would love to chat with you sometime. I would love to hear the parts of Christianity you affirm. Most of your content is correcting inaccuracies so I am always curious about what is left once the dogma is removed. Keep making the great content your friend in San Antonio Texas Ricky
Great question.
I'm also very curious. I can't help but feel that the arguments Dan makes seem to confirm my skeptical biases about the Bible, Christianity and faith in general, yet he claims to be and is often described as a practicing Mormon. Fascinating apparent contradiction.
He *doesn't* believe the bible to be Gods word, that an eyewitness of Jesus wrote a book in the Nt, that Moses wrote a book in our bibles or that Jesus got resurrected and went to heaven. He doesn't believe that God of the Bible is Almighty, he believes there are false prophecies in the bible, he also doesn't believe Jesus is God. He even believes Yhwh has a God above Him and that the bibles are not monotheistic.
There isnt much you can believe anymore and for sure no belief that the historical Jesus would have accepted.
@@leom6343 I think you are confusing the views of Dr McClellan on what the bible says or what can be proven, with his personal faith. One person may believe that the bible does not claim that Jesus is god, and still personally believe that Jesus is god. There is a difference there.
@@meej33 everything I mentioned I have from Dan. He also believes God lies in the bible. And scholars generally agree that Jesus is not God based on the bible and history, they don't say the bible doesn't claim he is God as if there is still an option he could be God. Even books with highest christology do not view Jesus as the supreme God Almighty.
So my point is what remains to believe in? Basically nothing. I mean scholars like Dan and their work are the reason I don't believe in the bible or Xtianity.
Dan on every block of the Apologist Neighborhood, watching and lurking.
Also in the head of every prominent, dishonest TikTok apologist, knowing their Dan Reckoning will arrive eventually.
Oh god, I hate it when they bring up the Atlantic Slave Trade. People really don't understand American slavery or what race and ethnicity really mean and their distinction. Even in this comments section. Seeing people argue over the ethics and motivations of my ancestor's enslavement is really bizarre. It was chattal slavery, what else is there to say? They were considered property, they were not considered persons. The bible was literally used to endorse it back when it was around. Apologists are wack as hell.
Slavery apologetics is pathetic, and that's the biggest problem with the doctrine of inerrancy some stuff just needs to go.
@@thedude9941
We probably need to bear in mind that the people who developed the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, particularly in the IS, had no problem with enslavement or subjugation of non-white people.
@maklelan2902 Think you misspoke at 6:32. You said if the servant dies after a day or two....no punishment.
The verse states that the servant "Gets Up", not dies.
Not really drj. This verse goes to intent. If the person dies the same day as the beating, then it's determined that the master intended to kill him and he is avenged. If he dies after a couple of days, then it's determined that his intent was not to kill him, so there is no punishment since the slave is his property. You have to look at both 20 and 21 here.
@@nickbrasing8786 but verse 21 says "if he gets up", implying he did not die, right?
I constantly see apologists just ignoring the chattel slavery just because theres indendtured slavery.
I am always stunned, despite long experience, by the immorality of apologists. I leave aside slavery, which is totally unjustifiable whatever its form, to concentrate on indurent servitude. It is abominable to force human beings to sell one of their own or to sell themselves even for a limited period.
Probably the most interesting thing about contemporary defense of biblical slavery is that it illustrates a far more disturbing reality. If the bible is the divine word of a god, but can be that horribly misinterpreted for that long, by that many people, it's worthless. Not even 200 years ago we had A US Senator standing on the floor of the US senate declaring _Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible. I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation. Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments, in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized - sanctioned everywhere._ Jefferson Davis. It's not as though he was alone either. So what changed? The book? Nope!
The only thing that makes atheists more angry than people interpreting the Bible to support bigotry and divisiveness is people interpreting the Bible to support inclusiveness and unity.
Oh this is a good insight.
I don't get why people are constantly trying to do this. Why can't people just be intelligent enough to admit that, it was a different time, the past sucked, and learn from their mistakes..
Well said. This tactic is hands down one of the easiest arguments used when they say...."How can I follow a God that (inserts this proof text)......" Ignorance at it's finest. And these very "arguments" are in this comment section. Smh.
Here’s why: to refute the notion of the unerring truth and current relevance of the Bible would require them to rethink their entire world view. If those who use those arguments to form their political and personal philosophy of life in the 21st century would shut that down, we could move on.
You're good at this.
Religious apologists should understand how harmful and ridiculous they are and appear in trying to justify the horrors of the bible. Keep them honest Dan!!
This apologist probably believes that morality is objective and Biblical. So he should advocate indentured servitude. Even if I accept, just for the sake of argument, that his explanations are correct I think his Biblical morals depraved.
Thanks Dan!!
They hate the slavery bits
They do now. Most of them.
150 years ago? Yyeeaahhhh…….
@@villageroadgranite They hate the slavery bits only if you use the word. Call it something else and they’re OK. Trade school or something.
Weird how old testament Israel instituted the same apartheid state they have today.
You mean the one where the alleged "Palestinians" ( they're really Arabs) enjoy the rights of a democratic nation that NONE of the other empires that controlled the area before extended to them?
Note that the Palestinians are fellow children of Abraham.
@@byrondickensPalestine hasn't had free and open election since 2006.
Some pple say that when jesus referred to the Canaanite woman as a dog, that he didn't mean dog , rather he was testing her faith and that. Also that Jews used to refer to non Jews as dogs but not in a bad way, could you explain?
Sounds like the explanation I got from a JH one time. I thought there were a lot of issues with it at the time.
This guy is planning to become an apologist/excusiologist. You can tell because he is such a liar.
Or maybe a politician.
The first thing I do after watching one of Dan's videos, is jump to the comments section to read the sheer and utter nonsense posted by religious believers who attempt - and fail - to impugn the scholarship.
Personally, if I find that, in order to maintain my belief, I have to ignore the truth, then that's a sure sign that I need to let go of that belief.
Is there a book on xenophobia in the Bible?
not one
Are these people delusional? How can you read any of that and be like - "cool".
I'm more interested in Dan's opinions on fantastic miracles in the bible and whether they're fictitious or true. A good indication of the capacity of rational thought and grounding in reality. Important for any historian or scholar. It's not a side issue.
This is the 4th time im hearing bible slavery apoligetics bring up sports teams.its starting to make me wonder😅
How does this factor in with the rules about treating the foreigner well? When they first get there you’re welcoming and when they’re settled then you make slaves out of them? How do foreigners get to be in this awful predicament?
They can be sold by their families into it, or they could become slaves because of debt. Same as anyone really, except of course a native Israelite male. And the provisions to treat the foreigner well are obviously referring to free foreigners and not slaves.
If the religion you believe in makes you justify slavery... maybe you should rethink your beliefs.
It's like there's a standard explanation to justify Biblical slavery. I hear the same basic points over and over from different defenders. This guy just did a good job of explaining it susinctly.
Greetings, Christian teenager here, I'd like to respond to these claims and how I interpret them through my own research:
First claim being that foreigners were only eligible for chattel slavery. This claim is wrong,-
- and as seen in verse such as Exodus 21:2, Israelites could also become slaves. Although,-
- it doesnt necessarily say the word "property" we see throughout the rest of the Old Testament-
- that foreigners were treated as well as locals, here are some verses:
exodus 23:9,22:1,25:46,22:1,Dueteronomy 27:19,Leviticus 19:34, It it clear then that someone
referred to as property isnt treated any poorer. And the word "property" can be rather
seen as persons value of labour
Now some still see this as ethical targeting, due to different regulations (not poorer compared to Israelities)
including yourself, but you have to remember that-
Israelities, locals, and Judahites were all held by communal and religious bonds, all whom were-
- all freed from oppression and captivation by God. Thus, were more obedient and trustful.
Foreigners on the other hand, were not known, but least to say that they were treated poorly, as-
- seen by verses above. Knowing this, foreigners couldn't be fully trusted, but despite that, they
would still be treated in the same manner as Israelities.-
- To substantiate my point, as we see God does not show partiality, and makes it clear that
if anyone harms a slave, they are to be held against the judgement - Exodus 21:12-35 covers this.
Second claim being that slaves were absolutely forced into labour- As seen by daughter being-
- sold by men to master which says that she is not to go free. If you read this verse hoping
that it will endorse forced labour then it will. But knowing everything else, it would be clear-
- that it doesnt imply that they were held against their will. As in context, you would know
that the sale of a daughter as a servant was often a voluntary arrangment made by the family
due to financial difficulties or for the sake of beneficial marriage for the daughter.
Plus, their legal protections and of all the other slaves further supports this point, for it wouldnt
- make sense for them to be treated so well but forgeting about their own free will and they want.
Also, as seen later, we see pregnant woman projected as servant, from which we can conclude that-
- servant refers to more of a housewife
Going back to beneficial part of that verse, being that it would allow them then to have a well-
- established life where they (females) could reprocreate, but again, NOT having to, if against their will.
Third claim being that slavery in no shape or form whatsoever being to do with debt slavery, which-
-is wrong. Knowing the historical context of slavery back then, as you said yourself, debt slavery
was indeed a factual thing, but at the top of that, we have verses which indicate that would also
be the case with foreigners and Israelites: Exodus 22:2-3, Leviticus 25:39, Deuteronomy 15:12
Again, reason why Israelites are not slaves but servants is because God freed them, so it wouldnt
make sense for them to be slaves again, which God was very much against , as seen by his wrath
and the plagues send on ruthless masters of Israelites. Foreigners are considered slaves, stil-
-to be treated as servants (Israelites) but to be called slaves due to not knowing them.
Now the word "punish" in Exodus 21:20-21 which in hebrew is "naqam" doesnt explicitely means murder,
but rather revenge, which we could argue or not could be of the same infliction or worse -
- depending on God's judgement and his will. But knowing God's nature presented by the
- Old Testament, we would conclude that God would judge that person in a way that wouldn't attract
anyone to do so as well - so possibly murder. "Death penalty" (or similar) not being included here-
- would show judicial process, by which if the beating of slave was appropriate, say in case of-
- them trying to harm someone as well, would be up to God's judgement, which is why it isnt-
- death but accordingly judgement. This verse, doesnt draw distinction between Israelites or-
-foreigners, showing God impartiality
Hope this is somewhat readable and understandable as I am not really into apologetics or good at english whatsover :P
One of the biggest points you failed to address that makes your interpretation most likely wrong is the distinction between israelite slaves and foreign slave is that it says to treat israelite enslaved as not a eved but to treat them as a sachir. But for the foreign slave it says they are a eved. The Bible makes very clear distinctions. This alone makes Dan interpretation more likely then yours. It's is pretty clear from the words used that debt slaves are israelites and are to be treated as hired help while foreign slaves are pretty close to chattel slavery.
Also claiming a person as a value of labor not property is nonsense they are enslaved. Debt slaves are a thing but it's very clear only for israelite slaves. Foreign slaves are not.
Foe example Leviticus 25 is very clear on the difference between foreigner and israelite slave. Makes multiple rules on how israelite slaves can go free but very specificly states how you can own a foreign slave for life.
@@Alexander-the-Mediocre The terms "eved" and "sachir" have different connotations, but that doesn't automatically imply a difference in the fundamental nature of their servitude. Even though Bible DOES make distinctions between Israelites and foreigners, but these distinctions often relate to legal and social obligations rather than the inherent nature of their status as servants or slaves.
For example, while Israelites are referred to as "sachir" (hired workers), it doesn’t necessarily mean they were treated better in every respect; instead, it reflects their unique covenantal status and the obligations other Israelites had toward them.
And as I previously have shown in my comment, both foreigners and Israelites had same opportunities and were seen as equal - see my verses for inference 👍
@@guttenman foreigners that are free treated well is not the same as foreigner slaves being treated well. So maybe a free foreigner would have some opportunities but this is irrelevant to foreign slaves. Leviticus 25:46 Foreign slaves can be owned for life and can be inherented.
Lol the next verse is about if a foreigner becomes rich and buys a israelite slave all the rules about having to let them be redeemed. Funny that it's only very specificly talks about how israelite slaves can be redeemed but says foreign slaves can be owned for life and inherented. So is it equal that an israelite can own a foreign slave for life but a wealthy foreigner can't own an israelite slave for life?
So no foreign slaves do not have the same opportunity as israelite slaves. It is not equal. You error was equating free foreigners with foreigner slaves.
@@Alexander-the-Mediocre Let me make it a bit clearer:
The Exodus story illustrates how the Israelites were chosen by God and freed from oppression to become a distinct people. This foundational event set them apart from other nations, establishing them under a special covenant with God. Consequently, the laws given to the Israelites, including those about slavery, reflect their unique status and relationship with God, which was not intended to be the same as that of other nations.
The laws governing foreign slaves were different because they were designed to regulate existing practices rather than reflect the same moral and ethical standards given to Israelites. The distinction was meant to uphold the unique role and identity of the Israelites as God's covenant people.
Thus, the different treatment of Israelites and foreigners under these laws underscores the broader purpose of the covenant-to set the Israelites apart from other nations and fulfill God's plan for them. The Exodus and the subsequent laws served to maintain this distinction and guide the Israelites according to their special status and divine purpose.
@@guttenman yeah and if you look at that from a scholarly veiwpoint and not a dogmatic veiw point all your really giving me is excuses for oppressing and treating others as less because of ethnicity. Israelite are special by divine right so that's justification to enslave foreign children for life. Claiming divine right pops up throughout history and it's how many people justified terrible actions to foreigners or enemies. Israelite and foreigners can't be held to the same standards so Israelites have to be treated a certain way when enslaved but foreigners are basically chattel slaves and that's fine cause Israelite have special status to God.
In the end all you doing is justifing slavery of foreigners by saying they aren't special.
Well, I'm guilty of some of these same misunderstandings.
The protections for the 'Men' as it appears in these laws are meant for the 'B'ney Ysrael' or Sons of Israel, and not the foreign chattel. The foreign slave, for instance, is not covered by talionic justice.
The original "influencer" sounds so sure of themselves that I'm leaning heavily toward them knowingly stating falsehoods, not unknowingly passing on incorrect information.
The information is freely out there at this point. there is no excuse for them being this ignorant. I therefore believe that they choose to lie or that by insuring they do not know they commit an intentional lie of omission.
Here we go again...
Chattel slavery is based on the "Gentile slavery" from the Bible., just as indentured servitude was based on the "Hebrew slavery" of the Bible. Trying to defend slavery, Biblical or otherwise, is indeed a "Lost Cause". Just saying "Nuh-uh" is not a defense. It is denial.
You don't understand Dan, slaves long ago made millions of dollars playing games they loved and could leave at any time they wanted without going to jail or being put to death just like pro athletes today.
The two most prominent apologists defending biblical chattel slavery for non-Jews in the ancient Kingdom of Israel are Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, and Christian academic, William Lane Craig.
the two most ridiculed apologists in recent years
I would say lately you see more clips of Turek and Cliff than anything else. Two of the worst on the subject frankly. Which says a lot about the state of apologetics today frankly.
Cook Daniel, cook!
It needs to keep being said, these apologetics also rely on the general ignorance on modern laws and recent history:
In the US, debt slavery was _also_ practiced during antebellum times typically for non-black people (for example: paying off passage to the New World was a thing, as was tricking sharecroppers into owing farm owners a debt by debiting expenses against them without their knowledge so that they had to effectively become indentured slaves), however _debt slavery is now a crime_ - you cannot compel labour to pay off a debt, it will come with either a fine of $5000 or up to five years in prison or both for people who get caught trying that nonsense.
Chattel slavery _is_ illegal, but not a crime in the US. You cannot go to prison or be fined for it (they'll likely use other charges to do that though - kidnapping, false imprisonment, etc).
*It was a thing up until the 1940s that southern states would imprison people for black coded crimes, then (because the government is still allowed to enslave convicted prisoners) sell the prisoner to private organisations as indentured workers, and those private organisations would then get off scott-free when they were caught because it's not debt slavery, it's chattel slavery - and the government gave them the prisoner, so it's not even kidnapping or false imprisonment - and then the prisoner would get released only to immediately be recaptured for being unemployed without their former employer's permission (one of those aforementioned black coded crimes) and go right back into the system.*
Essentially, the argument "it's not the bad thing, it's this other thing you don't really think about *which we punish worse than the bad thing* so it's fine" is a shitty argument. All of it is exploitation. And that's _before_ we even engage with the fact that _both_ could be sexual slaves.
When Jacob moved his family to Egypt during the great famine of that time, it was for their own protection and survival. 70+ members of that family became over a million or so in the 400 years they were in Egypt. Why do you suppose God allowed Joseph to be sold into slavery by his brothers and rise to authority in Egypt? To protect the linage from which Christ was to come and to allow Jacob’s descendants to multiply so they could represent God to the world. God had His hand on His people even during slavery, for their protection.
just-so
More evidence that apologists start at the end and work their way backwards, which is now how logic and reason are supposed to work.
“NOT” how
It's definitely telling that being sentence to slavery in the mines was considered equivalent to a death sentence. It was called *damnatio ad metallum* by the Romans. Ancient slavery wasn't racialized, but it was still incredibly horrible.
Rowing at the galleys was reportedly not a picnic either.
🎯
@@meej33 "Rowing at the galleys was reportedly not a picnic either."
But they were paid, as I understand.
Paid mercenaries had a strong motive to maintain discipline in battle in hopes of winning and actually being paid, as opposed to slaves that would be more motivated to look for a means of escape and jump ship the moment the galley's hull took damage.
This creator is enthusiastically confident his argument is persuasive with a certain mind set while his nonverbal behaviors tells me he doesn't believe what he is saying. For whom does he perform and why? He is not an apologists, but rather some modern version of a courtesan seeking to have influence and power.
Why is lying for Jesus so popular? Maybe Dan should go over the exact meaning of "do not bear false witness" or how ever that rule sounded.
This is insane!
1:39 - also, its probably worth noting that American slavery has its roots in the Atlantic slave trade, where slaves were bought in Africa and transported across to the Americas, and the slaves in the African slave trade were Africans being caught and sold by other Africans to European slave traders. Naturally this means the slave trade was dominated by black slaves because that's pretty much all the slavers had to enslave. If Africa had had a wider variety of skin colours, then there likely would've been a wider variety being enslaved and still being slaves in America, and consequently Americans would've concocted some other reason to discriminate and try to justify the slavery than just skin colour (although even then, from the One Drop rule, I can't imagine they'd have treated white African slaves any better than they did black slaves).
You are wrong about the kidnapping: it was a capital offense and this completely changes the comparison to African slaves in the US: under Mosaic law there'd be none. Also the characterization that runaways being granted sanctuary only applying if from other countries is problematic: give them sanctuary so they can be later denied sanctuary. In real world terms the scholars you cite are lacking. IOW there's no practical reason why they wouldn't be abusive to foreign escapees if the future owner had the right to abuse. Is it your understanding that those who publicly announce they don't want to be freed, and having the aul ceremony, only apply to hebrews?
This was disgusting to watch
Slavery is very old in human history and abolished very recently.
This guy is a certified sus scrofa domesticus cosmetician.
Lipstick on a pig?
@@pansepot1490thanks, I didn’t get that.
Ah, another "owning people is actually cool" guy. There's an infinite supply.
Just curious - Am I the only one who is, when listening to these content creators who Dan checks, or when reading the comments of religious apologists who follow his channels, reminded of the movie Idiocracy? 🤣
Does the Bible condones slavery? No, at least not in the way you think it is. Here are three reasons why.
First, the Bible teaches that all human beings have equal value. Presuming some human beings are less valuable than others because of their appearance, their beliefs, or their ethnicity is, of course, an unbiblical concept. The Bible teaches that every human is valuable for one reason: Each is made in the image of God.
Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” God’s image in you makes you valuable regardless of the color of your skin, your religion, or where you were born. That intrinsic, transcendent value and worth of every human being is undermined by slavery since it causes violence to image bearers.
Second, the Bible reformed slavery. The Old Testament Law does allow for slavery of sorts. Remember, slavery was around long before the Mosaic Law-and every country practiced it-so, the Bible didn’t start slavery. It also didn’t end it, because that wasn’t the Law’s purpose. Instead, the Law improved conditions of a practice already in place.
Slavery in the Bible was not like slavery was in the United States. For example, when a Hebrew man or woman found themselves in financial hardship, they had the option to “sell” themselves into servitude. Several laws in Exodus and Leviticus were meant to protect those indentured servants. For example, Exodus 21:2 says that in the seventh year of service, all such male slaves “shall go out as a free man without payment.” (Female slaves could also be redeemed or simply go free for nothing if they weren’t provided for properly-21:7-11). Leviticus 25:39-40 says these “slaves” were to be treated as “a hired man, as if he were a sojourner.” Verse 43 says, “You shall not rule over him with severity.”
The Bible does allow for something more closely resembling chattel slavery. In Leviticus 25, after Israel’s conquest of Canaan, God allowed the Hebrews to take slaves from the remaining Canaanites. Notice the instructions were given under specific circumstances, though. One sign of conquering a people group was to take captive and enslave the survivors. The instructions in Leviticus were to a specific group of people at a specific time in history regarding a specific event. This is hardly an endorsement of slavery today, never mind what occurred during the North American slave trade. In fact, Exodus 21:16 explicitly prohibits the kidnapping and selling of human beings: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.”
The New Testament also addresses slavery. Ephesians 6:9 instructs slave owners to “give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.” Colossians 4:1 is similar: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.” In both instances, Paul instructs slave owners to remember to treat their slaves well because they also have a Master in heaven.
The Mosaic Law was not written to justify slavery. Instead, the Bible improved on a flawed human system by granting basic rights to servants and slaves and restricting how masters were to treat them. This important detail is usually overlooked by critics.
It was historically unprecedented for a slave to have any rights. Outside of Israel, slaves had no rights at all. Under God’s Law, though, slaves had the right to marry (Ex. 21:3) and the right to food and clothing (Ex. 21:10). God also restricted the punishment a master could impose on a slave (Ex. 21:20, 26-27). Instead of condoning slavery, the Bible reformed slavery as an institution. But there’s more.
Third, the Bible ultimately liberates all slaves. No, Jesus and the apostles didn’t condemn slavery outright. They didn’t have to. Instead, they let the gospel do that work, which is better than any law or political policy because it produces changed hearts.
Everyplace Christianity takes a firm hold on culture, slavery is eventually eliminated. Abolition is rooted in the biblical teaching that all men are created in the image of God and are therefore equal in value and worth. The Bible provides grounds for antislavery laws by prohibiting kidnapping (Ex. 21:16, 1 Tim. 1:8-10). The Bible teaches slaves are truly our brothers (Philem. 1:16). Best of all, Jesus offers true spiritual freedom to every human being of every tribe and every tongue.
Slavery in the Old Testament Law
Slave ownership was a common practice long before the time the Mosaic Law was given. So, the law neither instituted slavery nor ended it; rather, the law regulated it. It gave instructions on how slaves should be treated but did not outlaw slavery altogether.
*Hebrews with Hebrew slaves.* The law allowed for Hebrew men and women to sell themselves into slavery to another Hebrew. They could only serve for six years, however. In the seventh year, they were to be set free (Exodus 21:2). This arrangement amounted to what we might call indentured servanthood. And the slaves were to be treated well: “Do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you” (Leviticus 25:39-40). The law also specified that, “when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). The freed slave had the option of staying with his master and becoming a “servant for life” (Exodus 21:5-6).
*Hebrews with Gentile slaves.* When the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan, they were to drive out or destroy all the former inhabitants. However, that order was not fully obeyed, and many Gentiles remained in the land. God allowed the Hebrews to take slaves from among that population: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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” (Leviticus 25:44-46). So, the law did allow for slavery.
Several laws regulating slavery appear in Exodus 21. These laws gave some basic rights to slaves and curtailed the actions of masters in a historically unprecedented way. In the ancient world outside of Israel, slaves had no rights. But God’s Law extended to slaves the right to keep a wife (verse 3), the right not to be sold to foreigners (verse 8), the right to be adopted into a family by marriage (verse 9), and the right to food and clothing (verse 10). The law also limited masters in their use of corporeal punishment (verses 20, 26-27).
*Gentiles with Hebrew slaves.* Under the Mosaic Law, and if economic circumstances demanded it, a Hebrew had the option of selling himself as a slave to a Gentile living in Israel (Leviticus 25:47). The law also provided for the slave’s redemption at any time (verses 48-52). And the treatment of the Hebrew slave was to be considerate: slaves were “to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly” (verse 53). If no redemption came, the slaves were still released, with their families, on the Year of Jubilee (verse 54).
New Testament Instruction on Slavery
Even in the New Testament era, the Bible did not demand that every slave owner immediately emancipate his slaves. Rather, the apostles gave instructions to slaves and their owners on godly behavior within that social system. Masters were admonished on the proper treatment of their slaves. For example, in Ephesians 6:9 masters are told, “Treat your slaves in the same way [with goodwill]. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” Elsewhere, the command is, “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1).
Jesus and the apostles did not outright condemn slavery. They didn’t need to. The effect of the gospel is that lives are changed, one by one, and those changed lives in turn bring transformation to entire families, clans, and cultures. Christianity was never designed to be a political movement, but, over time, it naturally affected political policy. Alexander MacLaren wrote that the gospel “meddles directly with no political or social arrangements, but lays down principles which will profoundly affect these, and leaves them to soak into the general mind” (The Expositor’s Bible, vol. VI, Eerdmans, 1940, p. 301). In nations where Christianity spread and took firm hold, slavery was brought to an end through the efforts of born-again individuals.
The seeds of the emancipation of slaves are in the Bible, which teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27), which condemns those who kidnap and sell a person (Exodus 21:16; cf. 1 Timothy 1:8-10), and which shows that a slave can truly be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16).
Some criticize the Bible because it did not demand an immediate overthrow of every ingrained, centuries-old sinful custom of the day. But, as Warren Wiersbe pointed out, “The Lord chooses to change people and society gradually, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the proclamation of the truth of the Word of God” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, David C. Cook, 2007, p. 245).
What a load of crap, right from the beginning “First, the Bible teaches that all human beings have equal value.” Tell that to gay, trans, or queer people regularly abused & denied rights by “right-thinking Christians” apparently they read a different bible than you.
Tell that to the people supposedly killed in the flood. Wiped out all but 8 people, including the just conceived? Not even the unborn had value in god’s eyes.
The entire Hebrew bible is about how they are god’s chosen and therefore of more value than anyone else. And right through the current times Christians shifted that to them being the chosen people and if you aren’t Christian you are of lesser value.
@@GrumpiestKevinThe global flood of Noah’s day was the direct judgment of a just God. The Bible says the flood wiped out “people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds”-everything that breathed air (Genesis 7:23). Some people today are offended by the flood story, saying it is proof of God’s injustice, arbitrariness, or just plain meanness. They accuse the Bible of promoting a temperamental God who judges indiscriminately and say that only a bully would drown everyone, including children and all those innocent animals.
Such attacks on the character of God are nothing new. As long as there have been sinners in the world, there have been charges that God is unjust. Consider Adam’s subtle shifting of blame. When asked about eating the forbidden fruit, Adam said, “The woman you put here with me-she gave me some fruit” (Genesis 3:12). That is, it was the woman’s fault, and God’s, since He made the woman. But blaming God did not mitigate Adam’s sin. And calling God “unjust” for sending the flood will not lessen ours.
The flood of Noah’s day has many counterparts in history. God judged the people of Canaan with a command to wipe them out (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). He similarly judged Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineveh (Nahum 1:14), and Tyre (Ezekiel 26:4). And the final judgment before the Great White Throne will result in all the wicked from all time being cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). The plain message of the Bible is that God does judge sin, whether by an invading army, by fire and brimstone, or by a catastrophic global flood.
*The flood was just because God commanded it (and God is just).* “The LORD is upright . . . and there is no wickedness in him” (Psalm 92:15). “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of [God’s] throne” (Psalm 89:14). God always does what is right. His decrees and judgments are always just. If He decreed that the whole world be flooded, then He was just in doing so, no matter what human skeptics say. It is not surprising that we tend to define justice in a way that will benefit ourselves.
*The flood was just because mankind was evil.* “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). We cannot fully imagine the extent of the wickedness of that day. We have never seen the like. The evil was “great,” and every thought of everyone’s heart was *only* evil *continually.* There was no goodness in the world; every person was wholly corrupted. There was nothing within them that was not evil. The people of Noah’s day were not dabblers in sin; they had taken the plunge, and *everything* they did was an abomination.
The text provides some clues as to the extent of the evil before the flood. One problem was the rampant violence: “The earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence” (Genesis 6:11). The descendants of Cain, the first murderer, were abounding in bloodshed. Another evil among the antediluvians was occult sexuality. Genesis 6:1-4 mentions the Nephilim, “heroes of old, men of renown” who were the products of a union between fallen angels and human woman. The demons who participated in this sin are currently in “chains of darkness . . . reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). The people who participated-and the Nephilim themselves-were destroyed in the flood. The biblical description of pre-flood humanity is that they had become totally hardened and beyond repentance. Things were so bad that “the Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled” (Genesis 6:6).
But what about the children who drowned? The fact is that sin affects *all* of society, not just those who intentionally engage in evil. When a society promotes abortion, babies die as a result. When a father or mother begins taking meth, their children will suffer as a result. And, in the case of Noah’s generation, when a culture gives itself over to violence and aberrant sexuality, the children suffered. Humanity brought the flood upon themselves and upon their own children.
The flood was just because *all* sin is a capital offense. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). We should not be shocked that God swept away the world’s population with the flood; we should be shocked that He hasn’t done something similar to us! Sinners tend to have a light view of sin, but all sin is worthy of death. We take God’s mercy for granted, as if we deserve it, but we complain about God’s justice as if it’s somehow unfair, as if we *don’t* deserve it.
*The flood was just because the Creator has the right to do as He pleases with His creation.* As the potter can do whatever he wants with the clay on his wheel, so God has the right to do as He pleases with the work of His own hands. “The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths” (Psalm 135:6).
Here is the most amazing part of the flood story: “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). God’s grace extended into His damaged, sin-stained creation and preserved one man and his family. In so doing, God preserved the whole human race through the godly line of Seth. And, in bringing the animals into the ark, God also preserved the rest of His creation. So, God’s judgment was not a total annihilation; it was a reset.
As always, God’s judgment in Noah’s time was accompanied by grace. The Lord is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. *Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished”* (Exodus 34:6-7, emphasis added). God would rather the wicked repent and live (Ezekiel 18:23). God delayed judgment on the Amorites for four hundred years (Genesis 15:16). God would have spared Sodom for the sake of even ten righteous people dwelling there (Genesis 18:32). But, eventually, His judgment must fall.
It took Noah up to a hundred years to build the ark. We can assume that, if other people had wanted to board the ark and be saved, they could have done so. But that would have required faith. Once God shut the door, it was too late; they had lost their chance (Genesis 7:16). The point is that God never sends judgment without prior warning. As commentator Matthew Henry said, “None are punished by the justice of God, but those who hate to be reformed by the grace of God.”
The global flood of Noah’s day was a just punishment of sin. Those who say the flood was unjust probably don’t like the idea of judgment to begin with. The story of Noah is a vivid reminder that, like it or not, there is another judgment coming: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37). Are you ready, or will you be swept away?
@@GrumpiestKevinAll people, regardless of their story, are deeply and unconditionally loved by God, each created with profound dignity and worth, not one more than another. This is more than mere religious happy talk - it’s truth whether one is gay, straight, or otherwise. But, all people are also stricken with a terminal illness: sin. Everyone. No exceptions and to the same degree. Our sin demands our repentance and needs forgiveness, and God’s love and grace are where we find both. This is basic Christianity and the great equalizer of all people.
All people, regardless of their story, are deeply and unconditionally loved by God, each created with profound dignity and worth, not one more than another. This is more than mere religious happy talk - it’s truth whether one is gay, straight, or otherwise. But, all people are also stricken with a terminal illness: sin. Everyone. No exceptions and to the same degree. Our sin demands our repentance and needs forgiveness, and God’s love and grace are where we find both. This is basic Christianity and the great equalizer of all people.
The global flood of Noah’s day was the direct judgment of a just God. The Bible says the flood wiped out “people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds”-everything that breathed air (Genesis 7:23). Some people today are offended by the flood story, saying it is proof of God’s injustice, arbitrariness, or just plain meanness. They accuse the Bible of promoting a temperamental God who judges indiscriminately and say that only a bully would drown everyone, including children and all those innocent animals.
Such attacks on the character of God are nothing new. As long as there have been sinners in the world, there have been charges that God is unjust. Consider Adam’s subtle shifting of blame. When asked about eating the forbidden fruit, Adam said, “The woman you put here with me-she gave me some fruit” (Genesis 3:12). That is, it was the woman’s fault, and God’s, since He made the woman. But blaming God did not mitigate Adam’s sin. And calling God “unjust” for sending the flood will not lessen ours.
The flood of Noah’s day has many counterparts in history. God judged the people of Canaan with a command to wipe them out (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). He similarly judged Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineveh (Nahum 1:14), and Tyre (Ezekiel 26:4). And the final judgment before the Great White Throne will result in all the wicked from all time being cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). The plain message of the Bible is that God does judge sin, whether by an invading army, by fire and brimstone, or by a catastrophic global flood.
*The flood was just because God commanded it (and God is just).* “The LORD is upright . . . and there is no wickedness in him” (Psalm 92:15). “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of [God’s] throne” (Psalm 89:14). God always does what is right. His decrees and judgments are always just. If He decreed that the whole world be flooded, then He was just in doing so, no matter what human skeptics say. It is not surprising that we tend to define justice in a way that will benefit ourselves.
*The flood was just because mankind was evil.* “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). We cannot fully imagine the extent of the wickedness of that day. We have never seen the like. The evil was “great,” and every thought of everyone’s heart was *only* evil *continually.* There was no goodness in the world; every person was wholly corrupted. There was nothing within them that was not evil. The people of Noah’s day were not dabblers in sin; they had taken the plunge, and *everything* they did was an abomination.
The text provides some clues as to the extent of the evil before the flood. One problem was the rampant violence: “The earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence” (Genesis 6:11). The descendants of Cain, the first murderer, were abounding in bloodshed. Another evil among the antediluvians was occult sexuality. Genesis 6:1-4 mentions the Nephilim, “heroes of old, men of renown” who were the products of a union between fallen angels and human woman. The demons who participated in this sin are currently in “chains of darkness . . . reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). The people who participated-and the Nephilim themselves-were destroyed in the flood. The biblical description of pre-flood humanity is that they had become totally hardened and beyond repentance. Things were so bad that “the Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled” (Genesis 6:6).
But what about the children who drowned? The fact is that sin affects *all* of society, not just those who intentionally engage in evil. When a society promotes abortion, babies die as a result. When a father or mother begins taking meth, their children will suffer as a result. And, in the case of Noah’s generation, when a culture gives itself over to violence and aberrant sexuality, the children suffered. Humanity brought the flood upon themselves and upon their own children.
The flood was just because *all* sin is a capital offense. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). We should not be shocked that God swept away the world’s population with the flood; we should be shocked that He hasn’t done something similar to us! Sinners tend to have a light view of sin, but all sin is worthy of death. We take God’s mercy for granted, as if we deserve it, but we complain about God’s justice as if it’s somehow unfair, as if we *don’t* deserve it.
*The flood was just because the Creator has the right to do as He pleases with His creation.* As the potter can do whatever he wants with the clay on his wheel, so God has the right to do as He pleases with the work of His own hands. “The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths” (Psalm 135:6).
Here is the most amazing part of the flood story: “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). God’s grace extended into His damaged, sin-stained creation and preserved one man and his family. In so doing, God preserved the whole human race through the godly line of Seth. And, in bringing the animals into the ark, God also preserved the rest of His creation. So, God’s judgment was not a total annihilation; it was a reset.
As always, God’s judgment in Noah’s time was accompanied by grace. The Lord is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. *Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished”* (Exodus 34:6-7, emphasis added). God would rather the wicked repent and live (Ezekiel 18:23). God delayed judgment on the Amorites for four hundred years (Genesis 15:16). God would have spared Sodom for the sake of even ten righteous people dwelling there (Genesis 18:32). But, eventually, His judgment must fall.
It took Noah up to a hundred years to build the ark. We can assume that, if other people had wanted to board the ark and be saved, they could have done so. But that would have required faith. Once God shut the door, it was too late; they had lost their chance (Genesis 7:16). The point is that God never sends judgment without prior warning. As commentator Matthew Henry said, “None are punished by the justice of God, but those who hate to be reformed by the grace of God.”
The global flood of Noah’s day was a just punishment of sin. Those who say the flood was unjust probably don’t like the idea of judgment to begin with. The story of Noah is a vivid reminder that, like it or not, there is another judgment coming: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37). Are you ready, or will you be swept away?
Yea, the bible is describing the good kind of slavery.
Slaves were a part of the culture, this passage is saying EMPLOYEES and rules in place to protect them,no where is the bible condoning slavery.
TL;DR
The god of the Bible condoned slavery and promulgated rules about how to conduct it as part of the law codes documented in the Old Testament. Jesus and the Apostles had an opportunity to correct those laws but failed to do so, leading us to conclude that slavery is acceptable to the biblical god.
OLD TESTAMENT
In the OT a distinction is made between Israelite and non-Israelite slaves and between debt and chattel slavery. It is the Israelite debt slaves (“indentured servants”) that can go free after six or seven years and who are the ones apologists point to when defending the slavery of the Bible. But non-Israelite slavery also existed in ancient Israel, condoned and regulated by the various legal codes in the text.
Both Israelite men and women held slaves (Genesis 16:1). Yahweh-El had the opportunity to help Hagar in her flight from Abram and Sarai, but instead commanded her to return into servitude. Whether these stories represent actual people is doubtful, but the fact remains that the biblical deity revokes her manumission.
Where did the Israelites get their slaves? They were permitted to participate in the intertribal slave trade by Leviticus 25:44-46. This serves, incidentally, as a loophole to Exodus 21:16, which forbids kidnapping: the slaves being purchased were kidnapped by someone else.
Slaves could also be taken in battle. In Deuteronomy 20:10-15 the Israelites are commanded by Moses on behalf of Yahweh-El to take as spoils of war the women and children of any city that actively opposed them.
In Deuteronomy 21:10-14 sexual slavery and genocidal rape is condoned: women from opposing tribes, now captives of war, are taken advantage of with no means of recourse or self-defense. A woman could also be sold into sexual slavery by the (typically) impoverished head of her household with the understanding that she would eventually become one of the wives of the owner. Her role would be to breed more slaves. This taking of multiple wives is recorded throughout the OT.
According to Exodus 21:1-4, part of the Covenant Code of laws given to Moses by Yahweh-El on Mount Sinai, a slave could be born into servitude. If a master gave a slave a wife and she bore him children, the slave could later go free, but the wife and children must remain with the master as his property. Exodus 21:6 gives instructions on how to make an Israelite’s enslavement permanent.
Demonstrating the difference in status between free persons and slaves, someone who deliberately kills a free person is to be put to death (Exodus 21:12), but merely “punished” if they similarly beat their slave to immediate death; however, the slave owner may go unpunished if the beaten slave survives for a day or two “for he is his property” (Exodus 21:21). Bear in mind that this is the law code Yahweh-El is delivering to the Israelites-the previous chapter of Exodus contains the Ten Commandments.
Male Israelite slaves would be freed after six years of service (Exodus 21:2), but Israelite daughters and non-Israelite slaves were excluded from this form of automatic manumission (Exodus 21:7). On the other hand, Deuteronomy 15:12 says that both male and female slaves are to be set free after six years so we have a contradiction in the biblical god’s instructions to its people.
NEW TESTAMENT
In the NT, slavery is glorified albeit in a metaphorical sense (Matthew 20:27). Paul exhorted slaves to remain obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Titus 2:9-10). Peter wrote similarly in 1 Peter 2:18. In Colossians 4:1 Paul instructed slave owners to be kind to their slaves, instead of commanding them to be freed.
The key takeaway is that Jesus, the purported son of The biblical god, didn’t see fit to explicitly disclaim or countermand these pro-slavery laws.
SUMMARY
Slavery-in both its debt and chattel forms-was a part of life in the ancient Middle East. The Israelite law codes said to come from their tribal god condoned this slavery and promulgated rules on its commission. If the god of the Bible were truly omnipotent, it could have forbidden slavery outright, but instead thought it more important to regulate what people ate and the fabrics they could wear.
CURRENT STUDIES
See Catherine Hezser’s _Jewish Slavery in Antiquity_ for information about the Jewish practice of slavery in Greek and Roman times.
@@diogeneslamp8004 God did not condone slavery, he gave us free will and the hebrew laws and customs were man made, laws around owning made life difficult for owners, is this condoning?
@@diogeneslamp8004 slaves,emloyees, all the same, work as if working for God.p
@@berniefynn6623
Have you read your Bible? In Deuteronomy 10 Yahweh-El gives Moses the Ten Commandments and goes into a lengthy discussion of how the Israelites should live their lives, including how to take women and children captives. In Exodus 20 we repeat the law-giving except this time in the following chapter there’s a discussion of how spaces can be beaten without fear of punishment, how daughters can be dole into slavery, and so on.
From the text this is clearly Yahweh-El commanding Moses to promulgate these laws. God is condoning slavery by making laws for how to practice it and by never actually condemning it. In the Old Testament God cares more about your diet and the fabric your clothes are made from than about whether slavery is wrong.
@@diogeneslamp8004 your last sentence shows you know nothing, pigs for example are scavengers and full of disease, this is why they not to be eaten at that time and the cloth refers to a jew should not live with a non jew.
No matter how many Bible Bros post the same tired justifications, it doesn’t make their statements true.
.35: no "we" don't think of the antebellum South, "you" think of this, everyone else thinks of the thousands of Icelandic, Irish, Russian, Turkish, Spanish, and long etc folk who were raided and enslaved all over the ancient and not so ancient world to keep the wheels turning. Get a grip!
When they bring up American slavery I roll my eyes.
Irrelevant.
@@kentstallard6512Why do you consider it irrelevant? I'm thinking the creator mentions it because he's probably American, and it's the most recent blatant example of slavery that Americans are aware of.
I'm thinking the creator mentions it because he's probably American, and it's the most recent blatant example of slavery that Americans are aware of.
@@Noneya5555 For many Americans, slavery in America is the _ONLY_ form of slavery that they're aware of. A lot of Americans believe that the only other slavery taking place was in the Barbary Coast.
@@christasimon9716 Unfortunately, that's probably true.
🤙
As to Dan’s statement that we only hear what’s on the books, as far as the Bible is concerned…that’s true; nevertheless, the Bible’s insistence on specifying certain boundaries with the maltreatment of slaves, shows that ancient Israelite elites needed to legislate against certain actual nasty behaviors existing within the Israelites.
Also, later prophets complain, among other things, about mistreatment of slaves
There were already rulings how to treat slaves before the bible was written. And your point doesn't justify the fact that slaves are the property of the owner and more horrible stuff
Get out the sanitizer. LOL
Please....the Bible is barbaric garbage.
Code of Hammurabi did it first. What’s your point? Seriously, look it up. The Code of Hammurabi is widely and freely available, you can find it online, CTRL+F “slave” and read everything. Some of it is eerily similar to Biblical laws about slavery.
@@JopJio your entire post is irrelevant to what I wrote as I never said it justifies anything, nor did I ever talk about the Bible being first. I’m also aware of the slave corpus in the ANE.
😅
Actually, American slavery wasn’t based entirely on race. There were black slave owners for example. There could be a free black individual living down the road to a home with slaves. Eventually, race would become an argument for the continuation of the institution, but that’s where it met its demise.
What race were the slaves that black people owned? Were they ever white?
What's this kid's name again? My psychiatrist is phenomenal. I'll refer him.
OMG 😂
Another day, another round of Dan punching down.
Slavery in America was not initially racially motivated -- originally, it was ethnically motivated. In particular, many Irish who became destitute by a famine engineered by the English became basically chattel slaves in the colonies before the Atlantic slave trade reached North America. Once the North American colonies began receiving African slaves, the racial motivation was applied ex post facto -- the original impetus was the intersection of mercantilist greed and convenience. Spain had a few hundred years head start on the British colonies, but they also developed their racist ideological justification after the Atlantic slave trade was established.
Edit: clarified some statements and fixed some spelling mistakes.
People like the Irish suffered harsh indentured servitude, but it wasn't the same as chattal slavery. There was a time limit, and it was not something that descended to their children. The nature of their contracts and how they were sold was also very different, as well as their legal status as persons. That's an important distinction. Chattal Slavery specifically in America was very much racially motivated. Chattal is the type of slavery we are generally talking about in the video, even when saying early slavery.This is particularly the case around ethnic vs race motivations, not slavery in general, as that can come in many varieties. Although honestly this is all pedantic, slavery is wrong no matter what, although I think it's disingenuous to say that the only impetus originally was greed and convenience, especially when being a chattal slave inherently make you part of someone economy, since you are automatically property of monetary value.
@@saturnhex9855 actually, the Irish didn't speak English, so they did not consent to the indentured servitude contracts -- they were generally tricked into signing the documents. Many of them were simply kidnapped and sold as slaves, and the women and girls were used as breeders with African slaves once they arrived to get them to be perpetual slaves (much like the OT law about an indentured Israelite becoming a slave to stay with his family, except that the Irish girls didn't have a choice in whether or not they were impregnated). Also, since there was a chance the Irish slaves would claim their freedom after 7 years, they were much cheaper than African slaves, and they were often mistreated even worse since their owners did not expect to keep them for more than 7 years -- many died after just a few years of malnutrition and being overworked.
I did a bit more digging after my initial comment, and while the first slaves in the colonies were Irish, the African slaves arrived only a few years later. Many slave owners in the colonies had both Irish and African slaves, and the Irish slaves were treated as expendable because they were significantly cheaper. I contend that the modern concept of race was not the primary motivator because of the history of Irish slaves in America.
@@k98killer This is all new to me. Scholarly sources?
@@Noneya5555 my main source was Dr. Roger McGrath, Ph.D. historian from UCLA.
Actually American slavery was economically based. West Africa was where the slaves were available for the lowest price. I doubt Southern plantation owners would have cared about where they got their slaves.
Leviticus 25:46 is a Jewish commandment regarding Canaanite slaves. Why do Gentiles care how Jews structure their society?
Uh, because unlike you apparently, they think that slavery is wrong, especially when practiced by people who claim they were slaves themselves, and who didn't enjoy being slaves.
BTW, as usual, you're deflecting. The issue is that religious believers such as yourself actively refuse to acknowledge that the God of the Bible condoned slavery. That's the issue that the posters are discussing and concerned with, which you somehow seem not to notice or understand...?
@Noneya5555 He's a fundamentalist. Of course he doesn't understand.
Jewish people are okay with Gentiles having Jewish slaves? 🤔
One reason is that as long as Conservative Christians wield the OT against LGBT people, then the morality of the OT is fair game.
But also it’s good to be curious and educated about things, including religion.
@@PennyDreadful2024 There is no OT. The Torah is eternal and immutable: 613 commandments for Jews and the 7 for Gentiles.
"Europeans invented the concept of race"
I know this is popular among people that think they're elite-smart, but it's dumb. Just stop. At worst Europeans picked up the concept from middle ages contact with Islam on the Iberian peninsula. Mohammed, himself a slave trader/owner, considered an Arab to be twice the value of an African. The self-proud academic will quibble around the edges about ancient concepts and whatnot, but that's all sophistry. Tribalism begat nationalism begat racism as human circles of contact expanded, all well before Europe joined an already thriving slave industry.
" Tribalism begat nationalism begat racism "
@@TheDanEdwards if you're going to quote me, finish the quote. Concepts of race and racism predate Portuguese involvement in the African slave trade which was already thriving through African contact with Islam.
Dan you twist your bibble words to fit you faith.