Slavery is such a tough question when it comes to the Bible. And you're right that Hebrew families could volunteer to become an eved due to economic reasons, and then had to be released after serving 6 years. But those laws were restricted to native Hebrews only. The Bible is very clear on that. But foreigners? The ones talked about in Leviticus 25 that you referenced but didn't read here. These are the really difficult verses. Because this is not the voluntary indentured servitude you talked about. Nothing to do with poverty. These people were owned as property for their entire lives. And I've looked into the Hebrew in detail, and the law codes in the wider ANE. Surprisingly, the laws in the Bible were pretty consistent with the laws in the surrounding nations at the time. Not at all nothing like what was in the Bible. Actually very much like what was in the Bible. Some laws in the Bible were better for sure, but some were worse, but mostly pretty consistent. As the were to the laws in America as well. Not really entirely different as you put it. I looked into that too. It's just not as simple as you made it seem here.
You are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27). Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
@@Apollogetics I'm sorry, but becoming Jewish allowed them to eat certain meals and things like that, Absolutely true. But the Sabbath Year release was reserved for land owning Hebrews only. That all has to do with the land that God granted the original tribes in Israel. Handed down generation after generation. The Sabbath and Jubilee Years were there to return those people and that land (that had been leased out) to the original owners descendants. As a foreign convert, they could not own land in Israel. The land could never be sold according to Gods law. Therefore those years would always exclude converts. Do a little research and you can see. So no, simply converting would not make one eligible for the 6 year release. These people were slaves for life. The Bible literally says they are. Not sure why you think they weren't? Anyway, hope that helps!
@@nickbrasing8786 What about the law forbidding kidnap? Forbidding selling slaves who were kidnapped? Capital punishment offences. No foreigner and no Hebrew could be forced into slavery. The only exception was in war. The Jew had to love the foreigner, as they were once foreigners in a foreign land themselves. You need to read all the verses to do with indentured servitude to get the context and then try and explain the other verses in the light of them. You ignore the greater context in the way you argue.
@@Zebhammer Great questions Zeb. To answer we need to get into a little context here as you've suggested. Not just Biblical verses, but the wider Ancient Near East as well. So up front let me say that when I talk about the slavery laws, I'm talking about the ones for males. The female laws get more complicated. And I have read all the verses relating to indentured servitude. I could probably quote them all to you from memory actually. But those laws were exclusively for native Hebrews only. And I focus on the laws for non-Hebrews because they were the slaves in Israel. As to the laws on kidnapping in Exodus 21:16 and Deu. 24:7. Ignoring for now that this law very likely applied to kidnapping a Hebrew only, you have to understand that every nation at the time had a similar law. Every nation outlawed taking a free person and making them a slave (interestingly this is why slave traders were so widely hated. Because they sometimes did that). And because of this, very very few people at the time became a slave via kidnapping. So it really doesn't apply to the majority of slaves. But when you say "No foreigner and no Hebrew could be forced into slavery. The only exception was in war"? This isn't really true at all. Focusing on foreigners, (though Hebrews could be forced into indentured servitude too. Read 2 Kings 4:1 for example) they were mostly forced into slavery. Let's look at the top 3 ways people became a slave at the time. Debt, war and simply being born into it. Debt is the only potentially "voluntary" one, though the slaves would likely disagree with you. And war captives were not captured from Israels wars (they killed on the men in their wars), but captives from other nations wars and sold to Israel as slaves. But I'm not sure how you would argue that babies born into slavery somehow "volunteered" to become a slave? They did not. I hope that helps, but if you have more questions I'm happy to continue. But I have read and studied extensively on this. In context.
@@nickbrasing8786 The word forever used in Leviticus 25 is misapplied because it's used anachronistically by those who proclaim biblical slavery. This word forever or "olam" means by mainstream ANE scholars to be the year of Jubilee or until the master's death.
One of the questions was about the Eastern Orthodox Church. I appreciated Alisa's answer. Gavin Ortlund has a lot of helpful material related to the Eastern Orthodox. I recommend googling his name and "Eastern Orthodox" as a good place to learn more. As Alisa kind of specializes in defending theologically conservative evangelical Protestant beliefs against progressive churches, Gavin specializes in defending conservative evangelical Protestant churches against Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. Of course, they both have broader ministries that cover a range of issues well.
I had a bible teacher once who, when asked about being concerned about others not in heaven when he gets there, he said he'd be too involved w/ God's glory to worry about that.
Alisa, the question is not about “indentured servitude “ it’s about slavery. When questions about slavery arise apologists always try to blindside their ignorant audience by making the question about indentured servitude. Sadly, Alisa you are either ignorant or disingenuous. Have you read Leviticus 25:44-46? This has nothing to do with indentured servitude. 44 tells the Israelites that they may buy their male and female slaves from the nations around them.45 tells the Israelites that they may buy the children of strangers who dwell among them and that they become their property. 46 tell them that these slaves can be permanent slaves and inherited property for their children. How is this any different from chattel slavery?
She has to be a liar because this tactic has been pointed out over and over and over and over and over again. She's a liar and she knows most of her audience won't bother with the actual study required (not that it's that hard) to see that chattel slavery was condoned in the law and that neither Jesus nor Paul spoke against it. It's weird that they can lie with such impunity from their own audience who claim they represent Jesus who said he was the Truth. It's proof Christianity is a fraud, at least to me. If Christianity is true, why do apologists have to lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie?
You are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27). Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Therefore, ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. BUT, this would still only be until the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9-10) because it marked the beginning of the end to all forms of slavery to all people including non-hebrew slaves within the land of Canaan/Israel. This means that any contractual laws created by the Jews or Gentiles were merely allowed for a brief time because the 50th year rule was deemed holy of God and thus trumps every other law crafted or practiced by the Jews and foreigners. Lastly, if you read Isaiah 61:1-3 and Luke 4:17-21, you will see that Jesus reinstituted the Year of Jubilee to free everyone from bondage in the same fashion. So even if you want to redefine the definition of slavery, your claim that the bible condones slavery is still false!!!
@@Apollogetics Why lie? Just admit the text condones slavery. The Israelites could buy slaves and pass them as property to their offspring. They could beat them. They could breed them like animals. Why do Christians lie about this? It makes it worse, btw.
@@Apollogetics This is one of the most disingenuous and nonsensical responses I have seen on the the question of whether the Bible condones slavery. There is so much wrong with what you’ve said that I do not have enough time to respond to it all. So, some basic observations. Chattel slavery is the owning of other people as property. What you are referring to is The Covenant of Circumscision”. This has nothing to do with owning other people as property. Jubilee only applied to Israelites in indentured servitude. In any event, jubilee was every 50 years. The average age in biblical times was 33-35. The chances of dying in indentured servitude or slavery was high. To say that the Bible does not condone slavery means you are either ignorant or lying. Where in the Bible does it say not to own other people as property? Instead it tells you where to buy your slaves, that they are permanent property, an inheritance for your children, and how much you can beat them.
Great answers to questions by Alisa Childers. Agree the statement of Faith or the Tennants of Faith should be on Websites for Bible Believing Churches. Keep up the good work Alisa.
My advice for Alisa: Please educate yourself more. Read more about the law codes of the ANE. Read the Bible more carefully. 1) „Slaves had the same worth and dignity as free people.“ Wrong. Look at Exodus 21, 28-32. The life of a Free person is worth a human’s life. The life of a slave is worth 30 Shekel. Or Lev 19, 20-23: Adultery with a betrothed free woman lead to a death sentence. Adultery with a betrothed slave woman does not. The woman gets only scourged and the man has to sacrifice a ram and the sin is forgiven. 2) „No protections for slaves in other Near East cultures.“ Wrong. Code of Nesilim: - If anyone slay a male or female slave in a quarrel, he shall bring this one and give two persons,either men or women, he shall let them go to his home. - If anyone smite a male or female slave, he shall bring this one also and give one person, he shall let him or her go to his home. - If anyone blind a male or female slave or knock out their teeth, he shall give ten half-shekels of silver, he shall let it go to his home. - If anyone cause a female slave to miscarry, if it be the tenth month, he shall give five half-shekels of silver. Other societies had similar laws. 3) Kidnapping was only outlawed in dase of Hebrews: "Whosoever shall steal one of the children of Israel, and prevail over him and sell him, and he be found with him, let him certainly die." (Exodus 21,17 LXX) Since the abduction of thousands of non-Hebrew woman can be found in severeal passages and nobody was executed for this "crime" the kidnappimg was accepted. Slavery in ancient Israel was not voluntary. Creditors could simply abduct children of the debtors. Hebrews were enslaved many six yea cycles in a row. There was no release after the first six years. The treatment of non-Hebrews was most likely even worse. Another advice: Don't blindly trust Paul Copan on this topic. He is really bad. If you really want to read his books read also other books about slavery in the Bible like Joshua Bowen's books - especially "Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?" 2nd edition.
if you read Jeremiah 34: 8-22, God told the Jews to free all the Hebrew slaves. At first, they did this, but then they went back to their old ways. This is why he made a law to let those slaves go free after 6 years of involuntary servitude. This is fundamentally why those laws existed in the first place. Also, those Leviticus verses are not legit examples of God condoning or sanctioning slavery either. This is because there is a difference between allowing the Jews to buy people from other countries who were already under contract to be slaves versus allowing the jews to enslave and sell from other countries who were free. Clearly, the latter was forbidden by law in Exodus: “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)
@meerkatsk5170 leviticus in no way says those victims were under contract to be slaves. You made that up out of pure christian deceipt. Plus, the child slaves in Leviticus could not consent to contract anything. Leviticus is legit god condoning and sanctioning horric chattel slavery. The verses regarding kidnapping also only referrer to Hebrews. And you do know the US legislated slavery AND had laws prohibiting kidnapping. Just as in the bible. stop taking those verses out of context
@@jaclo3112 I’m afraid you’re the one putting those verses out-of-context because you are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27). Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Furthermore, ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. BUT, this would still only be until the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9-10) because it marked the beginning of the end to all forms of slavery to all people including non-hebrew slaves within the land of Canaan/Israel. This means that any contractual laws created by the Jews or Gentiles were merely allowed for a brief time because the 50th year rule was deemed holy of God and thus trumps every other law crafted or practiced by the Jews and foreigners. Lastly, if you read Isaiah 61:1-3 and Luke 4:17-21, you will see that Jesus reinstituted the Year of Jubilee to free everyone from bondage in the same fashion. So even if you want to redefine the definition of slavery, your claim that the bible condones slavery is still false!!!
@meerkatsk5170 I'm not assuming anything. The bible specifically spells out its legislation on how to acquire chattel slaves and how to brutally beat them. And this includes child slaves in the very book of leviticus you quote. And nowhere is there even an allusion to the year of jubilee ending slavery. Where do you get such nonsense?
@@jaclo3112 Again, membership in the people of God was not based on ethnicity, which means that ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. Also, You are putting those Exodus verses out of context as well because those laws wouldn't even exist in the first place if the Hebrews listened to God the first time who commanded them to stop owning hebrew slaves: Jeremiah 34:8-22. In other words, those laws you are referring to was God trying to eliminate slavery NOT regulate it in a way that was a watered-down version of slavery as skeptics have generally suggested.
My granddaughter died in 2018, leaving behind a 3 year old daughter & a 5 week old son. Her husband remarried to a woman who is not a Christian & is raising my great-grandkids with values that would horrify my granddaughter. So, I cannot believe that people who have died are aware of the details of the lives of their loved ones still here. I don't understand what people are aware of after passing, but the "guardian angel watching over you" philosophy of many makes no sense because of the "no tears in Heaven" that I have been taught. Plus, the belief that people are recycled into angels makes even less sense. I no longer get the see the children, but I pray for them daily while I am here and know I can intercede for them. I pray for all of those I love, especially the unsaved ones.
You could write a book title”Deconstructing Leftism” in which you highlight the journeys of those who have walked away from the leftist religion and now follow Christ.
Regarding apologetics for young people, here is a great book: Surviving Religion 101, by Michael J. Kruger (remember the J., there is a similar name out there). Also, books on devotions and any encouragement to read the Bible and draw close to God. But, I have found many people are much less interested in learning about what they believe than learning how not to believe. It is an odd human mental game we play.
I find it ironic that wealthy westerners who technically have servants/slaves (our refrigerators, sinks, flush toilets, lamps, A/C, heaters, cars, vacuums, dishwashers, cell phones, washers, dryers, etc. do the work that humans used to do) are extremely judgmental of those in the past who practiced some form of servant hood or slavery. It happened on every continent and in every age; there are more slaves alive today than in any time in human history. Just imagine if our machine slaves were taken away from us! We wouldn’t be able to cope.
Comparing humans to machinery, is not only a poor analogy, but it’s also insulting. Should humans be allowed to own other humans, as property for life, as the bible says?
Let me get this straight. You actually thought to compare human beings to refrigerators, cars, etc., as if: why is the west so concerned about human slavery.?
It’s not insulting. It’s just a fact that machines have replaced human labor domestically and on farms. The Bible doesn’t recommend slavery; one of its greatest stories was the book of Exodus, which celebrates freedom! But as humans we default to slavery and God created laws to reign it in until it became obsolete or outlawed.
@@maureenufkes2491 yes, Yahweh didn’t want to share His slaves with anyone else, but the bible allows for the Israelites to own non-Israelites, as permanent property.
Slavery was considered of paying off a debt in the days of the old testament. Along history this way of paying a debt got corrupted by greedy people making it cruel in segregation to a particular race. This is still happening now with many people around the world.
@@michaelsbeverlylike the parents master's nurture the babies you mean or given away to them you mean? It was never liked that only the man and woman was to do work, also children to a certain degree. These people where free after 5 years of work, in most cases.
@ericksalas4904 lol 'in most cases' isn't good enough. Children who had foreign parents who were slaves were still owned as chattel. I've never seen any 5 year periods, usually periods of 6 or 7 years, but those laws are only for Israelites. Children could grow into adulthood and remain slaves until they die. Your denying this demonstrates Michael's point that you haven't read the literature you're talking about.
I agree that in an agricultural economy with little or no surplus, indentured servitude is not unreasonable to most people. I don't think this form of slavery addresses the most difficult verses, specifically Lev. 25:44, which amounts to chattel slavery when children of foreign slaves can be inherited. I think it's also important to note that God forbade Israelis from kidnapping individuals and forcing them into slavery or to be in possession of a kidnapped person (Exodus 21:16). Since kidnapping was prohibited, common legal ways of foreigners to become slaves of Israelites were criminal restitution and war settlement, in addition to debt slavery. The Mosaic laws were a compromise for a stubborn people. Just as with divorce, I agree the fact that God allows a practice does not mean it is God's ideal. In an iron age society, it could have very well been the case that not allowing this limited form of slavery would result in a worse state of affairs for the would-be slaves. They could have simply starved or been sexually exploited from a lack of resources, been executed since there was no place to imprison criminals, or been slayed in battle if there were no terms for peace to become prisoners of war. At the same time, God is working in other ways to soften hearts while mitigating the harms of an evil practice. It would have been great if God could have outlawed slavery altogether, but like I said that could have resulted in a worse state of affairs for the would-be slaves. It seems the Mosaic laws were a beacon to the surrounding nations, paving the way to a new covenant with Jesus.
What do you mean? He did outlaw slavery altogether. Haven't you read Jeremiah 34: 8-22, God told the Jews to free all the Hebrew slaves. At first, they did this, but then they went back to their old ways. This is why he made a law to let those slaves go free after 6 years of involuntary servitude.
@@ApollogeticsThe 6 years is only applicable to Israelite slaves, and they are not to be treated as slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 however says that gentiles can be slaves for life, and they are to be treated as slaves unlike the Hebrew slaves. And it's very obvious that God never outlaws slavery, because even in the NT we still see instructions for slavery. Not to mention God made it clear in Deuteronomy that everything from the five books of Moses is eternal law, and Malachi being the last Old Testament prophet ends saying to remember the law of Moses. The NT even makes it clear when Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-19 that he came to fulfill the Law and Prophets, not get rid of them. He also tells the Pharisees in Mark 7 that they exalt their tradition over the law that God revealed to Moses. This all shows there is no way to get around the debate on slavery, because if you are reading the Bible cover to cover it's only a matter of time before you reach those passages. And the Bible makes it clear the law revealed to Moses at Sinai matters, and Christians are still required to follow it as I have shown above.
@@thedude9941 You are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27). Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Therefore, ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. BUT, this would still only be until the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9-10) because it marked the beginning of the end to all forms of slavery to all people including non-hebrew slaves within the land of Canaan/Israel. This means that any contractual laws created by the Jews or Gentiles were merely allowed for a brief time because the 50th year rule was deemed holy of God and thus trumps every other law crafted or practiced by the Jews and foreigners. Lastly, if you read Isaiah 61:1-3 and Luke 4:17-21, you will see that Jesus reinstituted the Year of Jubilee to free everyone from bondage in the same fashion. So even if you want to redefine the definition of slavery, your claim that the bible condones slavery is still false!!!
There is explicit evidence found in the text of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that God not only approves of slavery and regulates it; he encourages it. Not indentured servitude. Slavery. Examples of this can be found in Genesis 12:16, Genesis 16:3, Genesis 24:35, Exodus 21:2-11, 20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46, Numbers 31:17-18, Isaiah 14:1-2, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and 1 Peter 2:18-20. These passages illustrate that slaves (typically members of non-Israelite or non-Christian nations) are given by God as a reward to his followers and are to accept their status in life even when they are abused. The slaves’ own dignity and comfort are not considerations. This view remained consistent from the time of the patriarchs to the decades following Jesus’ death. The argument that the Hebrew Bible radically differed from other ANE law codes is exaggerated. The differences are not as pronounced as apologists would have us believe. When there are differences, occasionally other law codes are superior. When comparing Exodus 21:2-6 to the Hittite laws it is evident that the Hittite laws offer more fair distribution of property and parental rights among slaves. The excerpt from Paul Copan’s book that Alisa read is nonsensical. Copan’s attempt to rehabilitate Exodus 21:20-21 fails because it still allows for the brutal treatment of slaves so long as the slave wasn’t killed. Slaves were treated as subhuman. This can be evidenced in the disproportionate punishment found in Exodus 21:26-27. Elsewhere the law insists on an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc. However, in Exodus 21:26-27, if a master destroys the eye of his slave or knocks out his tooth he is instead instructed to dismiss the slave from his service, suffering no harm himself. Furthermore, the law does not require him to financially compensate the slave, who has now been damaged. Should Exodus 21:20-21 and 26-27, along with the many other passages I’ve mentioned above, be read as a reflection of God’s character and attitudes toward us? Are we to suffer abuse up to the point of death and be discarded when that abuse leads to serious injury?
If you have bother to read Jeremiah 34: 8-22, God told the Jews to free all the Hebrew slaves. At first, they did this, but then they went back to their old ways. This is why he made a law to let those slaves go free after 6 years of involuntary servitude. HOWEVER, You are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27). Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Furthermore, ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. BUT, this would still only be until the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9-10) because it marked the beginning of the end to all forms of slavery to all people including non-hebrew slaves within the land of Canaan/Israel. This means that any contractual laws created by the Jews or Gentiles were merely allowed for a brief time because the 50th year rule was deemed holy of God and thus trumps every other law crafted or practiced by the Jews and foreigners. Lastly, if you read Isaiah 61:1-3 and Luke 4:17-21, you will see that Jesus reinstituted the Year of Jubilee to free everyone from bondage in the same fashion. So even if you want to redefine the definition of slavery, your claim that the bible condones slavery is still false!!!
@meerkatsk5170 Jeremiah 34:8-22 only applied to Hebrew slaves. God’s instructions to Abraham in Genesis 17 were to mutilate his male slaves’ genitals in a cultic practice known as circumcision to signify their inclusion in his household. Christians attempt to sanitize this by claiming that the slaves would enjoy a better life resulting from that initiation. However, this ignores Hagar’s mistreatment by both Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 16:6, 21:10). It also ignores the obvious question of the status of the other female slaves owned by Abraham, his family, and their descendants. Exodus 12:43-49 again prescribed the same male genital mutilation, this time with the prize being participation in the Passover meal. Great if one is an Orthodox Jew. Irrelevant to anyone else. You clearly have no comprehension of how the Year of Jubilee worked. Only Israelites were allowed to go free. Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly states that slaves taken from the surrounding nations would remain slaves. Which made the reinstitution of the Jubilee in Isaiah 61 irrelevant to non-Israelites. Furthermore, Jesus was invoking a spiritual application of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4, not advocating for slavery to end in a physical sense. If Jesus had ended slavery, Paul, and those writing pseudepigraphically as Paul and Peter, wouldn’t still be issuing instructions to slaves decades after Jesus’ death. You failed to address the passages I cited that allowed for and excused the abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:26-27, 1 Peter 2:18-20). Proverbs 29:19 practically encouraged beating slaves. You also didn’t address the differences I mentioned between the Mosaic Law and other ANE law codes. Did you even bother to compare Exodus 21 to the Hittite laws? Serendipitously, this morning I just read a chapter in The Mind of the Bible-Believer by Dr. Edmund D. Cohen that I find rather applicable to this discussion. It contains a quote from Freedom of Thought in the Old South by Clement Eaton. “The growing need of defending the institution of slavery…tended to produce religious uniformity in the South… By pointing to the undeniable words of the Holy Scriptures, religious leaders…presented a plausible defense of slavery and fostered a reactionary movement in the Southern church. The Northern abolitionists, on the other hand, since the letter of the Bible was against them, appealed to ‘the spirit of Christianity.’” I have not failed to demonstrate that the Bible endorsed slavery. You, on the other hand, have succeeded in demonstrating that Dr. Cohen and Clement Eaton were both correct in their assessments of apologists that attempt to sanitize the numerous examples of that endorsement found within the Biblical text.
@@JD-er4gf "God’s instructions to Abraham in Genesis 17 were to mutilate his male slaves’ genitals in a cultic practice known as circumcision to signify their inclusion in his household. Christians attempt to sanitize this by claiming that the slaves would enjoy a better life resulting from that initiation. However, this ignores Hagar’s mistreatment by both Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 16:6, 21:10). It also ignores the obvious question of the status of the other female slaves owned by Abraham, his family, and their descendants." I don't see how this has anything to do with slavery or support your claim about it. "Exodus 12:43-49 again prescribed the same male genital mutilation, this time with the prize being participation in the Passover meal. Great if one is an Orthodox Jew. Irrelevant to anyone else." Where are you getting this? The bible does not suggest that at all. The circumcision of the slave enjoined formally on the first day that Israel became a nation, in accordance with the law given to Abraham, made him a true member of the family, equally entitled to all religious privileges. Just take a look at Genesis 17:12-14, it clearly suggests that it is more than food but access to all the benefits of being Jew. "You clearly have no comprehension of how the Year of Jubilee worked. Only Israelites were allowed to go free. Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly states that slaves taken from the surrounding nations would remain slaves. Which made the reinstitution of the Jubilee in Isaiah 61 irrelevant to non-Israelites. Furthermore, Jesus was invoking a spiritual application of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4, not advocating for slavery to end in a physical sense. If Jesus had ended slavery, Paul, and those writing pseudepigraphically as Paul and Peter, wouldn’t still be issuing instructions to slaves decades after Jesus’ death." Again, membership in the people of God was not based on ethnicity, which means that ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. Also, the word forever used in Leviticus 25 is misapplied because it's used anachronistically by those who proclaim biblical slavery. This word forever or "olam" means by mainstream ANE scholars to be the year of Jubilee or until the master's death. "You failed to address the passages I cited that allowed for and excused the abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:26-27, 1 Peter 2:18-20). Proverbs 29:19 practically encouraged beating slaves. You also didn’t address the differences I mentioned between the Mosaic Law and other ANE law codes. Did you even bother to compare Exodus 21 to the Hittite laws?" Because you are putting those verses out of context. Those laws wouldn't even exist in the first place if the Hebrews listened to God the first time who commanded them to stop owning hebrew slaves: Jeremiah 34:8-22. In other words, those laws you are referring was God trying to eliminate slavery NOT regulate it in a way that was a watered-down version of slavery as skeptics have generally suggested. "You, on the other hand, have succeeded in demonstrating that Dr. Cohen and Clement Eaton were both correct in their assessments of apologists that attempt to sanitize the numerous examples of that endorsement found within the Biblical text." You all need to read the law of Moses more carefully; it is not what you think. Moses proclaims the economics of the Jubilee, not an absolute defense of the rights of proprietors. Those religious leaders were projecting an agenda into the Bible suggested to them by its Marxist critics, not by anything in the text.
@meerkatsk5170 What scholar(s) translates לְעֹלָ֖ם in Leviticus 25:46 to mean “the year of Jubilee or until the master's death”? In addition to a name or names I would like a citation of their work in which they make this claim. Your statement that “ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves” is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. Choosing to refuse the covenantal terms offered by another nation is not the equivalent of choosing to be enslaved. Every passage I’ve cited in this discussion explicitly supported and, in some cases, commanded slave-owning. Some of those passages allowed and, in some cases, encouraged beating slaves. There is no alternative conclusion that one can reasonably arrive at following a close reading of the text.
@@JD-er4gf "Every passage I’ve cited in this discussion explicitly supported and, in some cases, commanded slave-owning. Some of those passages allowed and, in some cases, encouraged beating slaves. There is no alternative conclusion that one can reasonably arrive at following a close reading of the text." Like I suggested before, both Genesis 17:12-14 and Jeremiah 34: 8-22 pretty much reveal that all you are doing is cherry picking the bible to suit your needs and you provided no evidence that foreigners or Jews had no choice but to endure the alleged harsh slavery you suggested existed and was promoted by the bible.
Goodness. If various apologists applied their "skills" to other sacred texts such as the Quran, they could easily whitewash those as well. Heck, if they applied their "skills" on me, I could be the most perfect human ever.
The reason Chrstnty is loosing its favor and respect with society, is because of the constant lying, scapegoating, and lack of accountability you guys engage in.
Thank you for answering my question. We homeschool and do apologetics as part of our curriculum in our school day, but want to have a list of books for my teens to read through their 12th grade years on their own. I'm currently reading "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" for myself and it's on the list.
It's a shame that she ignores the fact that the bible specifically condones and legislates brutal chattel slavery, the same kind as practised in the American slave trade. Sickeningly, the American slave trade used those very chattel slavery verses on the bible as their guide and foundation for the transatlantic slave trade. "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 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Exodus 21:20-21 None of this was voluntary. Especially the child slavery.
"The very notion that one could find perfect happiness in heaven while being aware of the eternal torment of others, especially loved ones, is an idea of such moral imbecility that it ought to be immediately dismissed by any rational mind." David Bentley Hart "If one imagines that the blessed in paradise are capable of enjoying eternal bliss, knowing that others suffer eternal torment, then one must believe that heaven's joys are rooted in ignorance or callousness; either they must be shielded from the knowledge of the damned, which would make their beatitude a kind of divine deception, or they must be so morally indifferent that the suffering of others causes them no sorrow." David Bently Hart
How many times do we atheists have to explain to Alisa that her god Yahweh and St. Paul both gave detailed instructions on how the Hebrews and Christians should treat their slaves.
It's simple - the idea that slavery is morally wrong is a modern idea. Agrarian societies simply had no problem with it. Simply put, slavery is not wrong, even if I myself am currently politically against it, and Jews and Christians should stop apologizing for it.
Slavery has a broad definition going back in time, this concept that language meanings vary over time and can have various meanings like the word love for example. Some "slavery" was volunteer to pay off a debt, almost like we work at a jobs today. Some of it is bad like people forced into hard labor with a whip master on them. Christians brought the well known subjectively bad slavery to an end in the United States, of course there is still slavery going on today everywhere, trafficking etc, but it is not by real Christians, but by non believers and satanist.
hello i am an atheist now listen to me because i am smarter than everyone else who is not an atheist. did i mention i am atheist and i am smarter than you?
Slavery is such a tough question when it comes to the Bible. And you're right that Hebrew families could volunteer to become an eved due to economic reasons, and then had to be released after serving 6 years. But those laws were restricted to native Hebrews only. The Bible is very clear on that. But foreigners? The ones talked about in Leviticus 25 that you referenced but didn't read here. These are the really difficult verses. Because this is not the voluntary indentured servitude you talked about. Nothing to do with poverty. These people were owned as property for their entire lives.
And I've looked into the Hebrew in detail, and the law codes in the wider ANE. Surprisingly, the laws in the Bible were pretty consistent with the laws in the surrounding nations at the time. Not at all nothing like what was in the Bible. Actually very much like what was in the Bible. Some laws in the Bible were better for sure, but some were worse, but mostly pretty consistent. As the were to the laws in America as well. Not really entirely different as you put it. I looked into that too. It's just not as simple as you made it seem here.
You are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27).
Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
@@Apollogetics I'm sorry, but becoming Jewish allowed them to eat certain meals and things like that, Absolutely true. But the Sabbath Year release was reserved for land owning Hebrews only. That all has to do with the land that God granted the original tribes in Israel. Handed down generation after generation. The Sabbath and Jubilee Years were there to return those people and that land (that had been leased out) to the original owners descendants. As a foreign convert, they could not own land in Israel. The land could never be sold according to Gods law. Therefore those years would always exclude converts. Do a little research and you can see.
So no, simply converting would not make one eligible for the 6 year release. These people were slaves for life. The Bible literally says they are. Not sure why you think they weren't? Anyway, hope that helps!
@@nickbrasing8786 What about the law forbidding kidnap? Forbidding selling slaves who were kidnapped? Capital punishment offences.
No foreigner and no Hebrew could be forced into slavery. The only exception was in war.
The Jew had to love the foreigner, as they were once foreigners in a foreign land themselves.
You need to read all the verses to do with indentured servitude to get the context and then try and explain the other verses in the light of them. You ignore the greater context in the way you argue.
@@Zebhammer Great questions Zeb. To answer we need to get into a little context here as you've suggested. Not just Biblical verses, but the wider Ancient Near East as well. So up front let me say that when I talk about the slavery laws, I'm talking about the ones for males. The female laws get more complicated. And I have read all the verses relating to indentured servitude. I could probably quote them all to you from memory actually. But those laws were exclusively for native Hebrews only. And I focus on the laws for non-Hebrews because they were the slaves in Israel.
As to the laws on kidnapping in Exodus 21:16 and Deu. 24:7. Ignoring for now that this law very likely applied to kidnapping a Hebrew only, you have to understand that every nation at the time had a similar law. Every nation outlawed taking a free person and making them a slave (interestingly this is why slave traders were so widely hated. Because they sometimes did that). And because of this, very very few people at the time became a slave via kidnapping. So it really doesn't apply to the majority of slaves.
But when you say "No foreigner and no Hebrew could be forced into slavery. The only exception was in war"? This isn't really true at all. Focusing on foreigners, (though Hebrews could be forced into indentured servitude too. Read 2 Kings 4:1 for example) they were mostly forced into slavery. Let's look at the top 3 ways people became a slave at the time. Debt, war and simply being born into it. Debt is the only potentially "voluntary" one, though the slaves would likely disagree with you. And war captives were not captured from Israels wars (they killed on the men in their wars), but captives from other nations wars and sold to Israel as slaves. But I'm not sure how you would argue that babies born into slavery somehow "volunteered" to become a slave? They did not.
I hope that helps, but if you have more questions I'm happy to continue. But I have read and studied extensively on this. In context.
@@nickbrasing8786
The word forever used in Leviticus 25 is misapplied because it's used anachronistically by those who proclaim biblical slavery. This word forever or "olam" means by mainstream ANE scholars to be the year of Jubilee or until the master's death.
One of the questions was about the Eastern Orthodox Church. I appreciated Alisa's answer. Gavin Ortlund has a lot of helpful material related to the Eastern Orthodox. I recommend googling his name and "Eastern Orthodox" as a good place to learn more. As Alisa kind of specializes in defending theologically conservative evangelical Protestant beliefs against progressive churches, Gavin specializes in defending conservative evangelical Protestant churches against Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. Of course, they both have broader ministries that cover a range of issues well.
I had a bible teacher once who, when asked about being concerned about others not in heaven when he gets there, he said he'd be too involved w/ God's glory to worry about that.
Alisa, the question is not about “indentured servitude “ it’s about slavery. When questions about slavery arise apologists always try to blindside their ignorant audience by making the question about indentured servitude.
Sadly, Alisa you are either ignorant or disingenuous.
Have you read Leviticus 25:44-46? This has nothing to do with indentured servitude. 44 tells the Israelites that they may buy their male and female slaves from the nations around them.45 tells the Israelites that they may buy the children of strangers who dwell among them and that they become their property. 46 tell them that these slaves can be permanent slaves and inherited property for their children. How is this any different from chattel slavery?
She has to be a liar because this tactic has been pointed out over and over and over and over and over again.
She's a liar and she knows most of her audience won't bother with the actual study required (not that it's that hard) to see that chattel slavery was condoned in the law and that neither Jesus nor Paul spoke against it.
It's weird that they can lie with such impunity from their own audience who claim they represent Jesus who said he was the Truth.
It's proof Christianity is a fraud, at least to me.
If Christianity is true, why do apologists have to lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie?
she doesn't care. She cares about earning green.
You are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27).
Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Therefore, ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. BUT, this would still only be until the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9-10) because it marked the beginning of the end to all forms of slavery to all people including non-hebrew slaves within the land of Canaan/Israel. This means that any contractual laws created by the Jews or Gentiles were merely allowed for a brief time because the 50th year rule was deemed holy of God and thus trumps every other law crafted or practiced by the Jews and foreigners. Lastly, if you read Isaiah 61:1-3 and Luke 4:17-21, you will see that Jesus reinstituted the Year of Jubilee to free everyone from bondage in the same fashion. So even if you want to redefine the definition of slavery, your claim that the bible condones slavery is still false!!!
@@Apollogetics Why lie?
Just admit the text condones slavery.
The Israelites could buy slaves and pass them as property to their offspring.
They could beat them.
They could breed them like animals.
Why do Christians lie about this?
It makes it worse, btw.
@@Apollogetics This is one of the most disingenuous and nonsensical responses I have seen on the the question of whether the Bible condones slavery. There is so much wrong with what you’ve said that I do not have enough time to respond to it all. So, some basic observations.
Chattel slavery is the owning of other people as property.
What you are referring to is The Covenant of Circumscision”. This has nothing to do with owning other people as property.
Jubilee only applied to Israelites in indentured servitude. In any event, jubilee was every 50 years. The average age in biblical times was 33-35. The chances of dying in indentured servitude or slavery was high.
To say that the Bible does not condone slavery means you are either ignorant or lying. Where in the Bible does it say not to own other people as property? Instead it tells you where to buy your slaves, that they are permanent property, an inheritance for your children, and how much you can beat them.
Great answers to questions by Alisa Childers. Agree the statement of Faith or the Tennants of Faith should be on Websites for Bible Believing Churches. Keep up the good work Alisa.
My advice for Alisa: Please educate yourself more. Read more about the law codes of the ANE. Read the Bible more carefully.
1) „Slaves had the same worth and dignity as free people.“ Wrong. Look at Exodus 21, 28-32.
The life of a Free person is worth a human’s life. The life of a slave is worth 30 Shekel.
Or Lev 19, 20-23: Adultery with a betrothed free woman lead to a death sentence. Adultery with a betrothed slave woman does not. The woman gets only scourged and the man has to sacrifice a ram and the sin is forgiven.
2) „No protections for slaves in other Near East cultures.“ Wrong.
Code of Nesilim:
- If anyone slay a male or female slave in a quarrel, he shall bring this one and give two persons,either men or women, he shall let them go to his home.
- If anyone smite a male or female slave, he shall bring this one also and give one person, he shall let him or her go to his home.
- If anyone blind a male or female slave or knock out their teeth, he shall give ten half-shekels of silver, he shall let it go to his home.
- If anyone cause a female slave to miscarry, if it be the tenth month, he shall give five half-shekels of silver.
Other societies had similar laws.
3) Kidnapping was only outlawed in dase of Hebrews: "Whosoever shall steal one of the children of Israel, and prevail over him and sell him, and he be found with him, let him certainly die." (Exodus 21,17 LXX) Since the abduction of thousands of non-Hebrew woman can be found in severeal passages and nobody was executed for this "crime" the kidnappimg was accepted.
Slavery in ancient Israel was not voluntary. Creditors could simply abduct children of the debtors. Hebrews were enslaved many six yea cycles in a row. There was no release after the first six years. The treatment of non-Hebrews was most likely even worse.
Another advice: Don't blindly trust Paul Copan on this topic. He is really bad. If you really want to read his books read also other books about slavery in the Bible like Joshua Bowen's books - especially "Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?" 2nd edition.
if you read Jeremiah 34: 8-22, God told the Jews to free all the Hebrew slaves. At first, they did this, but then they went back to their old ways. This is why he made a law to let those slaves go free after 6 years of involuntary servitude. This is fundamentally why those laws existed in the first place. Also, those Leviticus verses are not legit examples of God condoning or sanctioning slavery either. This is because there is a difference between allowing the Jews to buy people from other countries who were already under contract to be slaves versus allowing the jews to enslave and sell from other countries who were free. Clearly, the latter was forbidden by law in Exodus: “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)
@meerkatsk5170 leviticus in no way says those victims were under contract to be slaves. You made that up out of pure christian deceipt. Plus, the child slaves in Leviticus could not consent to contract anything. Leviticus is legit god condoning and sanctioning horric chattel slavery.
The verses regarding kidnapping also only referrer to Hebrews. And you do know the US legislated slavery AND had laws prohibiting kidnapping. Just as in the bible. stop taking those verses out of context
@@jaclo3112
I’m afraid you’re the one putting those verses out-of-context because you are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27).
Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Furthermore, ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. BUT, this would still only be until the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9-10) because it marked the beginning of the end to all forms of slavery to all people including non-hebrew slaves within the land of Canaan/Israel. This means that any contractual laws created by the Jews or Gentiles were merely allowed for a brief time because the 50th year rule was deemed holy of God and thus trumps every other law crafted or practiced by the Jews and foreigners. Lastly, if you read Isaiah 61:1-3 and Luke 4:17-21, you will see that Jesus reinstituted the Year of Jubilee to free everyone from bondage in the same fashion. So even if you want to redefine the definition of slavery, your claim that the bible condones slavery is still false!!!
@meerkatsk5170 I'm not assuming anything. The bible specifically spells out its legislation on how to acquire chattel slaves and how to brutally beat them. And this includes child slaves in the very book of leviticus you quote. And nowhere is there even an allusion to the year of jubilee ending slavery. Where do you get such nonsense?
@@jaclo3112
Again, membership in the people of God was not based on ethnicity, which means that ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves.
Also, You are putting those Exodus verses out of context as well because those laws wouldn't even exist in the first place if the Hebrews listened to God the first time who commanded them to stop owning hebrew slaves: Jeremiah 34:8-22.
In other words, those laws you are referring to was God trying to eliminate slavery NOT regulate it in a way that was a watered-down version of slavery as skeptics have generally suggested.
My granddaughter died in 2018, leaving behind a 3 year old daughter & a 5 week old son. Her husband remarried to a woman who is not a Christian & is raising my great-grandkids with values that would horrify my granddaughter. So, I cannot believe that people who have died are aware of the details of the lives of their loved ones still here. I don't understand what people are aware of after passing, but the "guardian angel watching over you" philosophy of many makes no sense because of the "no tears in Heaven" that I have been taught. Plus, the belief that people are recycled into angels makes even less sense. I no longer get the see the children, but I pray for them daily while I am here and know I can intercede for them. I pray for all of those I love, especially the unsaved ones.
Love these questions and answers videos. Please keep them coming!
Even Hank Hanegrath, Bible Answer Man, one of few apologists who had a platform in late 90's and early 2000's, has turned to Eastern Orthodoxy.
You could write a book title”Deconstructing Leftism” in which you highlight the journeys of those who have walked away from the leftist religion and now follow Christ.
Love your answers!!
What should be thought through to not be shaken facing trials and skepticism. Great idea. I hope she does that idea. Could be powerful and practical.
Regarding apologetics for young people, here is a great book: Surviving Religion 101, by Michael J. Kruger (remember the J., there is a similar name out there). Also, books on devotions and any encouragement to read the Bible and draw close to God. But, I have found many people are much less interested in learning about what they believe than learning how not to believe. It is an odd human mental game we play.
Yes people picking out scriptures without the rest of the story is bad. They never do that with their story or themselves.
If I’m not mistaken, the description is sin as cosmic treason against God was coined by the late RC Sproul.
Actually God says He will wipe away all tears from our eyes❤🙏
I find it ironic that wealthy westerners who technically have servants/slaves (our refrigerators, sinks, flush toilets, lamps, A/C, heaters, cars, vacuums, dishwashers, cell phones, washers, dryers, etc. do the work that humans used to do) are extremely judgmental of those in the past who practiced some form of servant hood or slavery. It happened on every continent and in every age; there are more slaves alive today than in any time in human history.
Just imagine if our machine slaves were taken away from us! We wouldn’t be able to cope.
Comparing humans to machinery, is not only a poor analogy, but it’s also insulting.
Should humans be allowed to own other humans, as property for life, as the bible says?
Let me get this straight.
You actually thought to compare human beings to refrigerators, cars, etc., as if: why is the west so concerned about human slavery.?
It’s not insulting. It’s just a fact that machines have replaced human labor domestically and on farms. The Bible doesn’t recommend slavery; one of its greatest stories was the book of Exodus, which celebrates freedom! But as humans we default to slavery and God created laws to reign it in until it became obsolete or outlawed.
@@maureenufkes2491 yes, Yahweh didn’t want to share His slaves with anyone else, but the bible allows for the Israelites to own non-Israelites, as permanent property.
@@maureenufkes2491 what laws did God create to outlaw slavery?
Slavery was considered of paying off a debt in the days of the old testament. Along history this way of paying a debt got corrupted by greedy people making it cruel in segregation to a particular race. This is still happening now with many people around the world.
Really? Paying off debt?
What debts did babies acquire?
You haven't read the book, you shouldn't talk about it.
@@michaelsbeverlyobviously not for a baby. Babies don't have debts you genius
@@ericksalas4904 Then why were babies of slaves owned by their parent's masters?
@@michaelsbeverlylike the parents master's nurture the babies you mean or given away to them you mean? It was never liked that only the man and woman was to do work, also children to a certain degree. These people where free after 5 years of work, in most cases.
@ericksalas4904 lol 'in most cases' isn't good enough. Children who had foreign parents who were slaves were still owned as chattel. I've never seen any 5 year periods, usually periods of 6 or 7 years, but those laws are only for Israelites. Children could grow into adulthood and remain slaves until they die. Your denying this demonstrates Michael's point that you haven't read the literature you're talking about.
Worship!
Sean McDowell has some good books for teens I believe
I agree that in an agricultural economy with little or no surplus, indentured servitude is not unreasonable to most people. I don't think this form of slavery addresses the most difficult verses, specifically Lev. 25:44, which amounts to chattel slavery when children of foreign slaves can be inherited.
I think it's also important to note that God forbade Israelis from kidnapping individuals and forcing them into slavery or to be in possession of a kidnapped person (Exodus 21:16). Since kidnapping was prohibited, common legal ways of foreigners to become slaves of Israelites were criminal restitution and war settlement, in addition to debt slavery.
The Mosaic laws were a compromise for a stubborn people. Just as with divorce, I agree the fact that God allows a practice does not mean it is God's ideal. In an iron age society, it could have very well been the case that not allowing this limited form of slavery would result in a worse state of affairs for the would-be slaves. They could have simply starved or been sexually exploited from a lack of resources, been executed since there was no place to imprison criminals, or been slayed in battle if there were no terms for peace to become prisoners of war. At the same time, God is working in other ways to soften hearts while mitigating the harms of an evil practice.
It would have been great if God could have outlawed slavery altogether, but like I said that could have resulted in a worse state of affairs for the would-be slaves. It seems the Mosaic laws were a beacon to the surrounding nations, paving the way to a new covenant with Jesus.
What do you mean? He did outlaw slavery altogether. Haven't you read Jeremiah 34: 8-22, God told the Jews to free all the Hebrew slaves. At first, they did this, but then they went back to their old ways. This is why he made a law to let those slaves go free after 6 years of involuntary servitude.
@@ApollogeticsThe 6 years is only applicable to Israelite slaves, and they are not to be treated as slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 however says that gentiles can be slaves for life, and they are to be treated as slaves unlike the Hebrew slaves.
And it's very obvious that God never outlaws slavery, because even in the NT we still see instructions for slavery. Not to mention God made it clear in Deuteronomy that everything from the five books of Moses is eternal law, and Malachi being the last Old Testament prophet ends saying to remember the law of Moses.
The NT even makes it clear when Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-19 that he came to fulfill the Law and Prophets, not get rid of them. He also tells the Pharisees in Mark 7 that they exalt their tradition over the law that God revealed to Moses.
This all shows there is no way to get around the debate on slavery, because if you are reading the Bible cover to cover it's only a matter of time before you reach those passages. And the Bible makes it clear the law revealed to Moses at Sinai matters, and Christians are still required to follow it as I have shown above.
@@thedude9941
You are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27).
Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Therefore, ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. BUT, this would still only be until the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9-10) because it marked the beginning of the end to all forms of slavery to all people including non-hebrew slaves within the land of Canaan/Israel. This means that any contractual laws created by the Jews or Gentiles were merely allowed for a brief time because the 50th year rule was deemed holy of God and thus trumps every other law crafted or practiced by the Jews and foreigners. Lastly, if you read Isaiah 61:1-3 and Luke 4:17-21, you will see that Jesus reinstituted the Year of Jubilee to free everyone from bondage in the same fashion. So even if you want to redefine the definition of slavery, your claim that the bible condones slavery is still false!!!
Guys, it's OK, it's an abed, not a slave. See, it's a different word.
There is explicit evidence found in the text of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that God not only approves of slavery and regulates it; he encourages it. Not indentured servitude. Slavery. Examples of this can be found in Genesis 12:16, Genesis 16:3, Genesis 24:35, Exodus 21:2-11, 20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46, Numbers 31:17-18, Isaiah 14:1-2, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and 1 Peter 2:18-20. These passages illustrate that slaves (typically members of non-Israelite or non-Christian nations) are given by God as a reward to his followers and are to accept their status in life even when they are abused. The slaves’ own dignity and comfort are not considerations. This view remained consistent from the time of the patriarchs to the decades following Jesus’ death.
The argument that the Hebrew Bible radically differed from other ANE law codes is exaggerated. The differences are not as pronounced as apologists would have us believe. When there are differences, occasionally other law codes are superior. When comparing Exodus 21:2-6 to the Hittite laws it is evident that the Hittite laws offer more fair distribution of property and parental rights among slaves.
The excerpt from Paul Copan’s book that Alisa read is nonsensical. Copan’s attempt to rehabilitate Exodus 21:20-21 fails because it still allows for the brutal treatment of slaves so long as the slave wasn’t killed. Slaves were treated as subhuman. This can be evidenced in the disproportionate punishment found in Exodus 21:26-27. Elsewhere the law insists on an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc. However, in Exodus 21:26-27, if a master destroys the eye of his slave or knocks out his tooth he is instead instructed to dismiss the slave from his service, suffering no harm himself. Furthermore, the law does not require him to financially compensate the slave, who has now been damaged.
Should Exodus 21:20-21 and 26-27, along with the many other passages I’ve mentioned above, be read as a reflection of God’s character and attitudes toward us? Are we to suffer abuse up to the point of death and be discarded when that abuse leads to serious injury?
If you have bother to read Jeremiah 34: 8-22, God told the Jews to free all the Hebrew slaves. At first, they did this, but then they went back to their old ways. This is why he made a law to let those slaves go free after 6 years of involuntary servitude.
HOWEVER, You are presupposing that membership in the people of God was in consequence of ethnicity, not confession, but this is not scriptural nor could be long sustained. Abraham had set a precedent: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." (Genesis 17:27).
Why? This was, and remained, the command of God: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Genesis 17:12). This is the token of the covenant. Thus, Once they had joined the congregation, Moses' protections and benefits of the 6 year law covered these new-comers as well as the native-born. Entry was open to them including slaves, as suggested by passages like Exodus 12:44: "But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Furthermore, ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves. BUT, this would still only be until the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9-10) because it marked the beginning of the end to all forms of slavery to all people including non-hebrew slaves within the land of Canaan/Israel. This means that any contractual laws created by the Jews or Gentiles were merely allowed for a brief time because the 50th year rule was deemed holy of God and thus trumps every other law crafted or practiced by the Jews and foreigners. Lastly, if you read Isaiah 61:1-3 and Luke 4:17-21, you will see that Jesus reinstituted the Year of Jubilee to free everyone from bondage in the same fashion. So even if you want to redefine the definition of slavery, your claim that the bible condones slavery is still false!!!
@meerkatsk5170 Jeremiah 34:8-22 only applied to Hebrew slaves.
God’s instructions to Abraham in Genesis 17 were to mutilate his male slaves’ genitals in a cultic practice known as circumcision to signify their inclusion in his household. Christians attempt to sanitize this by claiming that the slaves would enjoy a better life resulting from that initiation. However, this ignores Hagar’s mistreatment by both Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 16:6, 21:10). It also ignores the obvious question of the status of the other female slaves owned by Abraham, his family, and their descendants.
Exodus 12:43-49 again prescribed the same male genital mutilation, this time with the prize being participation in the Passover meal. Great if one is an Orthodox Jew. Irrelevant to anyone else.
You clearly have no comprehension of how the Year of Jubilee worked. Only Israelites were allowed to go free. Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly states that slaves taken from the surrounding nations would remain slaves. Which made the reinstitution of the Jubilee in Isaiah 61 irrelevant to non-Israelites. Furthermore, Jesus was invoking a spiritual application of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4, not advocating for slavery to end in a physical sense. If Jesus had ended slavery, Paul, and those writing pseudepigraphically as Paul and Peter, wouldn’t still be issuing instructions to slaves decades after Jesus’ death.
You failed to address the passages I cited that allowed for and excused the abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:26-27, 1 Peter 2:18-20). Proverbs 29:19 practically encouraged beating slaves.
You also didn’t address the differences I mentioned between the Mosaic Law and other ANE law codes. Did you even bother to compare Exodus 21 to the Hittite laws?
Serendipitously, this morning I just read a chapter in The Mind of the Bible-Believer by Dr. Edmund D. Cohen that I find rather applicable to this discussion. It contains a quote from Freedom of Thought in the Old South by Clement Eaton. “The growing need of defending the institution of slavery…tended to produce religious uniformity in the South… By pointing to the undeniable words of the Holy Scriptures, religious leaders…presented a plausible defense of slavery and fostered a reactionary movement in the Southern church. The Northern abolitionists, on the other hand, since the letter of the Bible was against them, appealed to ‘the spirit of Christianity.’”
I have not failed to demonstrate that the Bible endorsed slavery. You, on the other hand, have succeeded in demonstrating that Dr. Cohen and Clement Eaton were both correct in their assessments of apologists that attempt to sanitize the numerous examples of that endorsement found within the Biblical text.
@@JD-er4gf
"God’s instructions to Abraham in Genesis 17 were to mutilate his male slaves’ genitals in a cultic practice known as circumcision to signify their inclusion in his household. Christians attempt to sanitize this by claiming that the slaves would enjoy a better life resulting from that initiation. However, this ignores Hagar’s mistreatment by both Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 16:6, 21:10). It also ignores the obvious question of the status of the other female slaves owned by Abraham, his family, and their descendants."
I don't see how this has anything to do with slavery or support your claim about it.
"Exodus 12:43-49 again prescribed the same male genital mutilation, this time with the prize being participation in the Passover meal. Great if one is an Orthodox Jew. Irrelevant to anyone else."
Where are you getting this? The bible does not suggest that at all. The circumcision of the slave enjoined formally on the first day that Israel became a nation, in accordance with the law given to Abraham, made him a true member of the family, equally entitled to all religious privileges. Just take a look at Genesis 17:12-14, it clearly suggests that it is more than food but access to all the benefits of being Jew.
"You clearly have no comprehension of how the Year of Jubilee worked. Only Israelites were allowed to go free. Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly states that slaves taken from the surrounding nations would remain slaves. Which made the reinstitution of the Jubilee in Isaiah 61 irrelevant to non-Israelites. Furthermore, Jesus was invoking a spiritual application of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4, not advocating for slavery to end in a physical sense. If Jesus had ended slavery, Paul, and those writing pseudepigraphically as Paul and Peter, wouldn’t still be issuing instructions to slaves decades after Jesus’ death."
Again, membership in the people of God was not based on ethnicity, which means that ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves.
Also, the word forever used in Leviticus 25 is misapplied because it's used anachronistically by those who proclaim biblical slavery. This word forever or "olam" means by mainstream ANE scholars to be the year of Jubilee or until the master's death.
"You failed to address the passages I cited that allowed for and excused the abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:26-27, 1 Peter 2:18-20). Proverbs 29:19 practically encouraged beating slaves.
You also didn’t address the differences I mentioned between the Mosaic Law and other ANE law codes. Did you even bother to compare Exodus 21 to the Hittite laws?"
Because you are putting those verses out of context. Those laws wouldn't even exist in the first place if the Hebrews listened to God the first time who commanded them to stop owning hebrew slaves: Jeremiah 34:8-22.
In other words, those laws you are referring was God trying to eliminate slavery NOT regulate it in a way that was a watered-down version of slavery as skeptics have generally suggested.
"You, on the other hand, have succeeded in demonstrating that Dr. Cohen and Clement Eaton were both correct in their assessments of apologists that attempt to sanitize the numerous examples of that endorsement found within the Biblical text."
You all need to read the law of Moses more carefully; it is not what you think. Moses proclaims the economics of the Jubilee, not an absolute defense of the rights of proprietors. Those religious leaders were projecting an agenda into the Bible suggested to them by its Marxist critics, not by anything in the text.
@meerkatsk5170 What scholar(s) translates לְעֹלָ֖ם in Leviticus 25:46 to mean “the year of Jubilee or until the master's death”? In addition to a name or names I would like a citation of their work in which they make this claim.
Your statement that “ANY Gentile in the nation of Israel who remained outside the covenant people of God themselves chose that status along with the Jews who choose to stay slaves” is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. Choosing to refuse the covenantal terms offered by another nation is not the equivalent of choosing to be enslaved.
Every passage I’ve cited in this discussion explicitly supported and, in some cases, commanded slave-owning. Some of those passages allowed and, in some cases, encouraged beating slaves. There is no alternative conclusion that one can reasonably arrive at following a close reading of the text.
@@JD-er4gf
"Every passage I’ve cited in this discussion explicitly supported and, in some cases, commanded slave-owning. Some of those passages allowed and, in some cases, encouraged beating slaves. There is no alternative conclusion that one can reasonably arrive at following a close reading of the text."
Like I suggested before, both Genesis 17:12-14 and Jeremiah 34: 8-22 pretty much reveal that all you are doing is cherry picking the bible to suit your needs and you provided no evidence that foreigners or Jews had no choice but to endure the alleged harsh slavery you suggested existed and was promoted by the bible.
Goodness. If various apologists applied their "skills" to other sacred texts such as the Quran, they could easily whitewash those as well. Heck, if they applied their "skills" on me, I could be the most perfect human ever.
The reason Chrstnty is loosing its favor and respect with society, is because of the constant lying, scapegoating, and lack of accountability you guys engage in.
Thank you for answering my question. We homeschool and do apologetics as part of our curriculum in our school day, but want to have a list of books for my teens to read through their 12th grade years on their own. I'm currently reading "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" for myself and it's on the list.
It's a shame that she ignores the fact that the bible specifically condones and legislates brutal chattel slavery, the same kind as practised in the American slave trade. Sickeningly, the American slave trade used those very chattel slavery verses on the bible as their guide and foundation for the transatlantic slave trade.
"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
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Exodus 21:20-21
None of this was voluntary. Especially the child slavery.
Beautiful!! 💜🌈 😻
👉Maybe church culture is your next book 🤔
"The very notion that one could find perfect happiness in heaven while being aware of the eternal torment of others, especially loved ones, is an idea of such moral imbecility that it ought to be immediately dismissed by any rational mind." David Bentley Hart
"If one imagines that the blessed in paradise are capable of enjoying eternal bliss, knowing that others suffer eternal torment, then one must believe that heaven's joys are rooted in ignorance or callousness; either they must be shielded from the knowledge of the damned, which would make their beatitude a kind of divine deception, or they must be so morally indifferent that the suffering of others causes them no sorrow." David Bently Hart
Foolish might be uneducated
Did Jesus leave us a church or a book?
If you believe then the answer would be both, only the Bible is a library and not a book.
Probably don't bring up Hebrew words you can't properly pronounce.
You're lying to people about slavery in the Bible.
Prove it!
Yeah put your money where your mouth is and prove it.
How many times do we atheists have to explain to Alisa that her god Yahweh and St. Paul both gave detailed instructions on how the Hebrews and Christians should treat their slaves.
It's simple - the idea that slavery is morally wrong is a modern idea. Agrarian societies simply had no problem with it. Simply put, slavery is not wrong, even if I myself am currently politically against it, and Jews and Christians should stop apologizing for it.
Slavery has a broad definition going back in time, this concept that language meanings vary over time and can have various meanings like the word love for example. Some "slavery" was volunteer to pay off a debt, almost like we work at a jobs today. Some of it is bad like people forced into hard labor with a whip master on them. Christians brought the well known subjectively bad slavery to an end in the United States, of course there is still slavery going on today everywhere, trafficking etc, but it is not by real Christians, but by non believers and satanist.
Interesting that you're even here. Don't have something "better" to do?
I hope you listened to what she had to say, James.
hello i am an atheist now listen to me because i am smarter than everyone else who is not an atheist. did i mention i am atheist and i am smarter than you?
Wow, she justifies the beating of the slave. Gross
Saya mohon ijin untuk kita putus hubungan cinta oke thanks syalom ♥️🙏
Tidak ada sedapnya oke thanks 🙏
Alisa can you say FUCK???