Slavery in the Bible

The Christian Bible condones slavery explicitly in numerous passages. One of those reference often by slave owners in the Antebellum South comes from the story of Noah.

Genesis 9:24-27
9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.


The book of Joshua also demonstrates the Christian god’s support of slavery:

9:27 And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose.

In fact, there are numerous biblical instructions on how to acquire slaves, making it clear that buying people for money is perfectly acceptable.

Exodus 21:2-7
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Leviticus 22:10-11
22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
22:11 But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

Or slaves can be taken in war.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Leviticus goes on to make it clear that slaves are inheritable possessions.

25:44 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.
25:45 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.
25:46 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 rigor.

There are also many biblical instructions on how to treat slaves. Genesis 16:6-9 says that angels will force slaves to return to their owners.

16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thine hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
16:8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

Beating slaves as long as they don’t die immediately is perfectly fine.

Exodus 21:20-21
21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Leviticus shows that slaves are property, not covered by the laws protecting other people.

19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

The New Testament doesn’t fare any better. Slavery is explicitly condoned in many places.

Luke 12:46-47
12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Luke 17:7-9
17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

1 Corinthians 7:21-22
7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.

Ephesians 6:5 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

Colossians 3:22 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2:9-10
2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Nowhere in the Christian Bible is slavery explicitly condemned nor are any of the verses that explicitly support the practice repudiated. Of course, numerous verses are interpreted to be anti-slavery. The fact that both slavery proponents and abolitionists were able to quote scripture in support of their views demonstrates clearly that the bible is, at best, ambiguous. Surely a book intended to provide moral guidance could have found room in the Ten Commandments for “Thou shalt not own slaves.”

The rational conclusion is that the bible is an amalgamation of writings by many different men, each with his own political goals and views on morality. It is only those who hold it to be the inerrant word of their god who find themselves in the position of attempting to defend the odious passages that clearly support slavery. That attempted defense is a blatant and appalling demonstration of religious belief overriding common decency and empathy.

831 thoughts on “Slavery in the Bible

  1. fifthmonarchyman:
    If the folks here are nothing else they are confident in their own abilities to glean private meanings from ancient writings. Joseph Smith would be proud

    You should look up the words “projection” and “hypocrite”.

  2. TomMueller:
    Keiths – I will preemptively concede your rebuttal of my “moving the goal posts”

    You were referring to “the Bible” and I invoked the “Oral Law”

    Problem still remains:the Bible is rife with inconsistency and downright contradiction, so deference to actual interpretation and practice needed to be cited here.

    Or we could recognize that it’s simply an old book, the work of men with various political axes to grind, and move past the ancient superstitions it documents.

  3. TomMueller:
    . . .
    Now I recognize that my version of events as presented raises whole other issues that should propel some pious believers present into apologetic paroxysms, but that is another matter altogether.
    . . . .

    That’s a feature, not a bug.

  4. fifth,

    How about the better solution of a divine interpreter (The Holy Spirit) present in every member of the community to insure that the understanding of the text was both faithful to it’s original meaning and presents enlightened moral direction?

    OK, so let’s lay out the “logic” here:

    1) God wanted people to know that slavery was forbidden; so

    2) he wrote a book telling people that they could buy slaves, own them for life, bequeath them to their children, and beat the crap out of them, as long as they didn’t die right away; but

    3) then he realized that he didn’t really mean that; so

    4) he (in the person of the Holy Spirit) went and edited the minds of all the people reading the book that he had screwed up; so that

    5) they would believe exactly the opposite of what was said by the book they were reading.

    Perfectly sensible, perfectly logical — if you’re high on peyote and haven’t slept for three days.

  5. Tom Mueller,

    The authors of the reference are actually Pamela Barmash & W. David Nelson

    No, Barmash and Nelson are the editors. The author of the chapter is Reuven Hammer, which is why it says “Reuven Hammer” at the top of the page.

    They and I say exactly the same thing!

    No, Hammer contradicts you, as does the Bible itself.

  6. Tom,

    Keiths – I will preemptively concede your rebuttal of my “moving the goal posts”

    You were referring to “the Bible” and I invoked the “Oral Law”

    The problem isn’t just with your goalpost move, it’s with your original claim:

    So-called “ownership” (for lack of a better word) was never intended to be permanent. Only under very extenuating circumstances was the slave-master relationship ever made permanent.

    It was intended to be permanent in the case of non-Israelite slaves, as shown by the Leviticus passage and confirmed by the very person you cited as an expert.

    All the Talmudic wrangling in the world can’t retroactively change the clear meaning of the text.

  7. OMagain: And yet god provided explit rules for preists, therefore the idea that every person was considered a priest is simply wrong

    No, It’s just wrong in the Old Covenant.

    again think local and temporal……….and………rules for a rebellious and obstinate people …….and……..obsolete.

    When it comes to the New Covenant we read this

    quote:

    and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
    (Rev 1:5-6)

    and

    But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
    (1Jn 2:27)

    end quote:

    peace

  8. Patrick: So the authors of the biblical passages explicitly sanctioning slavery weren’t inspired by your holy spirit? Strange that those verses still made it into your bible.

    It’s one banana peel after another.

  9. OMagain: So there are no contradictions in the garden of eve story? Is that your claim? Despite there being several well known ones?

    There are no contradictions in the Bible at all. None nada

    There are some apparent contradictions that are easily dealt with if you simply give the Bible the same benefit of the doubt you would give any other writing.

    Think about it logically for a minute to say that there are contradictions in the Garden of Eden story requires you to believe that the author/compiler of the text was an imbecile that could not even remember what he wrote from one paragraph to the next.

    And that the people who revered and canonized the text were equally stupid. And all those nefarious scribes who supposedly changed the text down through the ages also did not have a clue.

    That is quite a lot of improbable baggage to swallow when the alternative is simply to acknowledge that you might not quite understand what is being said.

    peace

  10. keiths: Perfectly sensible, perfectly logical — if you’re high on peyote and haven’t slept for three days.

    FMM, just to be clear – when the Bible (God’s holy word etc…etc) says…

    You may own slaves.

    What it actually means is….

    You may not own slaves.

    Is this your position?

  11. Woodbine: FMM, just to be clear – when the Bible (God’s holy word etc…etc) says…

    You may own slaves.

    What it actually means is….

    You may not own slaves.

    Is this your position?

    No when the Old Covenant regulates the universally at the time held practice of slavery it was not talking to “You”.

    Nor is regulating a practice equal to condoning a practice.

    When US law says “you may possess pornography as long as it does not contain images of children” It does not mean that US law condones pornography.

    Here is the syllogism one more time

    Premise 1) Jesus says that everything in the law is consistent with loving your neighbor as yourself
    Premise 2) Jesus is the authority on the contents and meaning of the Law
    Premise 3) Slavery is inconsistent with the command to love your neighbor as your self
    conclusion) Nothing in the law can be understood to condone slavery.

    In order to dispute the conclusion you simply need to demonstrate that one of the premises is false or that the syllogism is invalid

    good luck

    peace

  12. keiths: 1) God wanted people to know that slavery was forbidden; so

    2) he wrote a book telling people that they could buy slaves, own them for life, bequeath them to their children, and beat the crap out of them, as long as they didn’t die right away; but

    no,

    God wanted people to know that slavery was forbidden so he instilled a conscience in them. People do not need a law telling them that slavery is immoral and wrong they already know that.

    keiths: 3) then he realized that he didn’t really mean that; so

    4) he (in the person of the Holy Spirit) went and edited the minds of all the people reading the book that he had screwed up; so that

    5) they would believe exactly the opposite of what was said by the book they were reading.

    No he sent the Holy Sprint to insure that people with the Spirit would not misinterpret his words.

    He left some folks with out the spirit to (among other things) demonstrate the lengths that unregenerate people would go to misinterpret his words.

    I’d say mission accomplished as witnessed by some comments here

    peace

  13. FMM, here’s a syllogism just as self-serving, just as self-referential and every bit as vapid as yours….

    1) Everything Woodbine says is true.

    2) Nothing FMM says can be trusted.

    3) Woodbine says FMM is guilty of a crime and must go to jail forever.

    4) FMM must go to jail forever.

    Now, FMM how do you answer these charges?!

    See?

    (This is the Chinese finger-trap of Reformed presuppositional apologetics in a nutshell.)

    Good luck.

  14. fifthmonarchyman: God wanted people to know that slavery was forbidden so he instilled a conscience in them. People do not need a law telling them that slavery is immoral and wrong they already know that.

    They needed a law about murder.

    They needed a law about theft.

    They needed a law about perjury.

    They needed a law about adultery.

    They needed a law about tattoos.

    They needed a law about divorce.

    They needed a law about incest.

    They needed a law about mixed fibres.

    They needed a law about shellfish.

    ….etc.

    But slavery – no, that was best left to their conscience. That worked out well didn’t it?

  15. keiths:
    Tom,

    The problem isn’t just with your goalpost move, it’s with your original claim:

    It was intended to be permanent in the case of non-Israelite slaves, as shown by the Leviticus passage and confirmed by the very person you cited as an expert.

    All the Talmudic wrangling in the world can’t retroactively change the clear meaning of the text.

    Hi Keiths

    I really need to thank you yet again! I was unaware of Reuven Hammer’s scholarship until pour exchange and I intend to purchase some of his books.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuven_Hammer

    To business – I am delighted that Hammer takes a very interesting position considered heterodox in some corners that accords exactly with my understanding (that required adjudication by a Rav as mentioned earlier).

    Back to Hammer’s enlightened interpretation and our disagreement.

    So far we are in agreement that Torah SEEMS to have one set of rules for Jews and a different harsher set of rules for non-Jews. According to a strict reading of your citation of Leviticus the “outsider” was to be treated differently.

    Are we in agreement so far?

    I then attempted to explain that the Hebrew Testament (Torah included) was written at different times by different individuals resulting sometimes in conflicting views and even blatant contradiction (even though Torah was supposed to be the inerrant word of God).

    Are we in agreement so far?

    An example of blatant and confounding contradiction would be as follows:

    Leviticus 19:34
    The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.

    And again

    Deuteronomy 10: 19
    “So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.”

    In other words, the non-Jew was not only to be treated no differently than the Jew – even in some instances the stranger was to be treated preferentially, i.e. given no less consideration than a widow or orphan (which is an onerous obligation in yiddishkeit!!!)

    These passages contradict your cited passages. Do we still agree so far?
    So how was the contradiction resolved according to Hammer (a source you seem to approve of)?

    Here is what Hammer says:

    ‘Deuteronomy also classifies the ger together with other defenseless members of society, the fatherless and the widow…
    Even though rabbinic law interpreted the ger here as a “member of the covenant,” that is, one who has already converted to Judaism, this is certainly not the original intent of the Torah. ‘
    pp 124-5

    Why is this VERY important, and I will explain.

    Hammer then goes on to explain his take on the later evolution of Talmudic subtlety and parsing of distinction with the notion of “Ger Teshov” which I also mentioned earlier. I agree with Hammer that the “teshov” designation was a later add-on and not the intent of Torah nor of those who interpreted Torah in the days the Temple was still standing. As a matter of fact – I am very excited in reading Hammer which conjures happy memories of my own debates regarding the finer points of Talmud with rabbis comfortable in some of the more esoteric interpretations of Pardes. You will need to take my word for it that hammer’s distinctions are very important in this debate!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

    In other words, the sages acknowledged there was a prima facie difference in status of non-Jew vs Jew although both were to be TREATED THE SAME and resolved the CONTRADICTION accordingly:

    … Oral Law required Jewish slave owners to try to convert non-Jewish slaves to Judaism such that the leniency described for Jewish slaves above would also apply “non-Jewish slaves”.

    In any case, Hammer elaborates the point even further (especially on page 124) that not only is the non-Jew to be treated as fairly as a Jew, in fact the non-Jew is to be given special consideration. On page 125, Hammer goes so far to say:

    …they [the Jews] have known slavery and what it means to be free from it, they should want to grant that to anyone else [in particular the Ger].

    Quod Erat Demonstrandum – i.e “…Talmudic wrangling in the world INDEED retroactively changed the clear meaning of the text.”

    Regarding, protection, rights and privileges of “slaves” in general, may I also direct your attention to Hammer’s citation of Talmud:

    “…he who buys a slave acquires a master…”
    http://tinyurl.com/glvmwg9

    Keiths, again I really need to thank you for conjuring happy memories from a previous lifetime

    Best and warmest regards

  16. I didn’t think this “debate” was intended to paint Jews as bad people.

    I thought it was about whether the bible provided rules of conduct written by and promulgated by God, and if so, why God forgot to say that slavery is bad.

    If the bible was written by people at various times an places and reflects an evolving morality, it is just an interesting historical document. Perhaps more incisive than most, but there appears to be nothing binding about its rules of conduct, except for those who voluntarily choose to obey them.

  17. The mental contortions are terrific….

    You may murder men and women.

    If you murder them within the city walls you must pay the coroner 50 shekels.

    If you murder them outside the city you will pay nothing – for they are your victims.

    I am the Lord.

    FMM….

    Regulating murder is not the same thing as condoning it!

  18. Tom,

    Quod Erat Demonstrandum – i.e “…Talmudic wrangling in the world INDEED retroactively changed the clear meaning of the text.”

    No, it didn’t. The person who wrote Leviticus 25:44-46 clearly meant what he or she wrote. Hammer recognizes this even if you don’t. Your own chosen expert contradicts you.

    Anyone who reads for comprehension, as opposed to obfuscation, can see that the Leviticus text permits the permanent enslavement of non-Israelites:

    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    Hammer sees this clearly (how could he miss it?):

    The non-Israelite slave, often called by the rabbis eved kena’ani — “Canaanite slave” — was a slave forever, as indicated by Lev 25:44-46…

    [emphasis added]

    It’s a direct contradiction of your claim:

    So-called “ownership” (for lack of a better word) was never intended to be permanent. Only under very extenuating circumstances was the slave-master relationship ever made permanent.

    Biblical scholarship involves paying attention to the Biblical text, Tom. Ignoring it or sweeping it under the rug is not a scholarly option, though apologists don’t hesitate to do so.

    Likewise, scholarship in general requires that you pay attention to what your cited authorities write. You cited Hammer as an authority, but now you want to ignore his clear statement regarding the permanence of non-Israelite slavehood.

    What you’re doing is not scholarship. It’s apologetics.

    Running around the Internet yelling “Basta!” at people does not qualify you to rewrite the Bible.

  19. Tom,

    Regarding the contradictions, of course the Bible contradicts itself. Again and again, all over the place.

    That doesn’t change the fact that the author of the Leviticus passage meant what he or she wrote.

    When you claimed that ownership was never intended to be permanent, you were mistaken.

  20. Woodbine,

    It’s one banana peel after another.

    The best part, for me, is watching fifth contradict himself while remaining clueless that he is doing so.

    Before, he was telling us that God didn’t forbid slavery in the Bible because when people know that something is forbidden, they do more of it.

    Now he’s telling us that the Holy Spirit lets us know that slavery is forbidden so that we won’t enslave people.

    He seems unable to take a single step without contradicting himself.

    Fifth,

    When you’re contradicting yourself right and left, it’s pretty obvious that what you are saying is not the revealed truth of an omniscient God. You’re just a confused guy trying to convince himself that he possesses “spiritual gifts”.

    The evidence suggests otherwise, to put it mildly.

    Matthew 7:19-20, KJV:

    19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    Your views are fruity, but they are not “good fruit”. Shall we cast you into the fire, or would you prefer that we treat you more humanely and less biblically?

  21. keiths:
    Tom,

    Regarding the contradictions, of course the Bible contradicts itself. Again and again, all over the place.

    Agreed!

    That doesn’t change the fact that the author of the Leviticus passage meant what he or she wrote.

    Agreed!

    When you claimed that ownership was never intended to be permanent, you were mistaken.

    You are incorrect on my error – because I agree with you regarding that particular verse and that it intended permanent “ownership” (sic) of non-Jewish “slaves”, and I have said so all along! I still maintain, permanent indentured servitude, and not “slavery” is more à propos, but no matter, I share your outrage at “permanence”.

    My only disagreement with you is your implication that the Bible as a whole advocated an evil version of “slavery” and therefore is an unworthy book “to provide moral guidance”.

    My contention is that coauthors of the Bible struggled with this issue but their hands were tied; they could not “explicitly” contradict the word of God already written. Therefore, they needed to do so implicitly and in doing so, they did in fact provide moral guidance you claim is absent in the Bible. To be clear here, the verse in Leviticus remained standing no differently than certain Laws regarding horse-drawn carriages here in Canada remain standing: still on the books but really irrelevant. (that is the part you seem to be missing here)

    That would also explain my emphasis on the Oral Law.

    I humbly suggest the thrust of your OP was a little misleading in this regard. ITMT, I really think we need to define our terms. According to you, the only reason “apprenticeship” as practiced in Charles Dickens’ England was not “slavery” was because it was not “permanent”.

    I think we have resolved our differences. Before going into lurk-mode, I want to observe that the sudden appearance of the Book of Deuteronomy bears remarkable resemblance to the Joseph Smith story… 😉 I will leave that for others to flog to death.

    best regards

  22. petrushka:
    I didn’t think this “debate” was intended to paint Jews as bad people.

    I thought it was about whether the bible provided rules of conduct written by and promulgated by God, and if so, why God forgot to say that slavery is bad.

    If the bible was written by people at various times an places and reflects an evolving morality, it is just an interesting historical document. Perhaps more incisive than most, but there appears to be nothing binding about its rules of conduct, except for those who voluntarily choose to obey them.

    I think you are correct on all points.

    If I may add to your thesis: the Bible does struggle with moral issues and can provide moral guidance, bringing me back to what I suggested to Patrick was “first principles”.

    Patrick’s sense of indignation and moral outrage is derived from the Bible whether he wants to admit it or not. We are all products of our causal antecedents – antecedents including a Judeo-Christian heritage that many here would prefer to disavow but cannot shed.

    I just mentioned Deuteronomy:

    ףדְּרִתּ קֶדֶצ קֶדֶצ ‘Tzedek, Tzedek Tirdof’

    – the call for justice and righteousness is part and parcel of our shared heritage, who we are and why we can agree on “first principles”.

    back to Lurk Mode – best regards to one and all

  23. Woodbine: They needed a law about murder.

    They needed a law about theft.

    They needed a law about perjury.

    They needed a law about adultery.

    They needed a law about tattoos.

    They needed a law about divorce.

    They needed a law about incest.

    They needed a law about mixed fibres.

    They needed a law about shellfish

    I think you have the wrong idea of what the purpose of the OC law was.
    It was never intended to be a guide to righteous living.

    It was intended to be a civil restraint and a means to convict the ungodly.

    quote:
    Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
    (Rom 5:20)

    and

    Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
    (1Ti 1:8-10)

    end quote:

    peace

  24. keiths: Regarding the contradictions, of course the Bible contradicts itself. Again and again, all over the place.

    If that is true then you can’t say that the Bible clearly condones slavery

    clear and self-contridictory are mutually exclusive concepts, you can’t have it both ways.

    This is elementary logic

    peace

  25. fifthmonarchyman: If that is true then you can’t say that the Bible clearly condones slavery

    clear and self-contridictory are mutually exclusive concepts, you can’t have it both ways.

    This is elementary logic

    peace

    Elementary Logic continued…

    … the Bible CANNOT be the inerrant word of God!

    QED

  26. fifthmonarchyman: There are no contradictions in the Bible at all. None nada
    . . . .

    You’ve been provided with several lists of such contradictions that you’ve attempted, and failed, to simply hand wave away. Here are just a few examples of clear contradictions in your bible:

    1) What is the order of creation of plants, animals, and Adam and Eve?

    2) How did Judas die?

    3) What happened to the money Judas was paid?

    4) How did Saul die?

    5) Do hares chew the cud? (This is one of several biblical claims that contradict reality.)

  27. fifthmonarchyman:
    . . .
    Here is the syllogism one more time

    Premise 1) Jesus says that everything in the law is consistent with loving your neighbor as yourself
    Premise 2) Jesus is the authority on the contents and meaning of the Law
    Premise 3) Slavery is inconsistent with the command to love your neighbor as your self
    conclusion) Nothing in the law can be understood to condone slavery.

    In order to dispute the conclusion you simply need to demonstrate that one of the premises is false or that the syllogism is invalid
    . . . .

    It has already been pointed out that your syllogism is self-serving and fails to address the actual evidence of the bible sanctioning slavery. You are desperately trying to avoid addressing the specific verses that do so.

  28. Woodbine: They needed a law about murder.

    They needed a law about theft.

    They needed a law about perjury.

    They needed a law about adultery.

    They needed a law about tattoos.

    They needed a law about divorce.

    They needed a law about incest.

    They needed a law about mixed fibres.

    They needed a law about shellfish.

    ….etc.

    But slavery – no, that was best left to their conscience. That worked out well didn’t it?

    And rape was also left out. Nice moral guidance there.

  29. TomMueller:
    . . .
    My only disagreement with you is your implication that the Bible as a whole advocated an evil version of “slavery” and therefore is an unworthy book “to provide moral guidance”.

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that the bible as a whole advocates slavery, but there are clear passages that do sanction the practice and none that explicitly disavow it.

    There are many reason why the bible isn’t a great moral guide, this is one.

  30. . . .
    Patrick’s sense of indignation and moral outrage is derived from the Bible whether he wants to admit it or not.We are all products of our causal antecedents – antecedents including a Judeo-Christian heritage that many here would prefer to disavow but cannot shed.
    . . . .

    The definition of “derived” required to make that argument is necessarily broad enough to be useless. Much of my personal morality runs counter to what the bible supports, and that which is aligned with it comes from much earlier sources, e.g. the golden rule.

    Certainly we’re all influenced by our upbringing and culture, but that doesn’t make the bible a good moral guide simply because it is part of that culture.

  31. fifthmonarchyman: There are no contradictions in the Bible at all. None nada

    There are some apparent contradictions that are easily dealt with if you simply give the Bible the same benefit of the doubt you would give any other writing.

    Laughably erroneous.

    Think about it logically for a minute to say that there are contradictions in the Garden of Eden story requires you to believe that the author/compiler of the text was an imbecile that could not even remember what he wrote from one paragraph to the next.

    Or one can simply recognize that the story of the Garden is a rather simple allegorical moral narrative filled with all sorts of myth, metaphor, and poetic language to get a point across through entertainment.

    And that the people who revered and canonized the text were equally stupid. And all those nefarious scribes who supposedly changed the text down through the ages also did not have a clue.

    Or again they recognized the importance of having poetic allegories as part of their overall guide to get people to embrace and ideal and quite readily acknowledging they were not recording an historical event.

    That is quite a lot of improbable baggage to swallow when the alternative is simply to acknowledge that you might not quite understand what is being said.

    peace

    Well, your depiction above is somewhat less improbable than the idea that anyone at the time thought two actual people in a garden begat the human race and then pissed off some fickle god by eating a piece of fruit, but that’s rather moot.

  32. It seems to me rather hazardous in a revealed religion to have entire chapters which people cannot understand or agree on.

    How many people have been killed or tortured or imprisoned for having an unacceptable interpretation?

    On the other hand, how many people misinterpret I=E/R?

  33. fifthmonarchyman: If that is true then you can’t say that the Bible clearly condones slavery

    clear and self-contridictory are mutually exclusive concepts, you can’t have it both ways.

    This is elementary logic

    peace

    Uuuggh! You really need to work on your “logic” there FMM.

    There is no issue with something (say a document) noting quite clearly two contradictory concepts unless said document is simply one sentence. But the bible is not one sentence; it’s a whole lot of sentences across a variety of different sections. So when one section has a passage like:

    12 z“If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold2 to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. aAs the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 bYou shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

    Deuteronomy 15:12-15

    And another section indicates:

    16 r“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found sin possession of him, shall be put to death.

    Exodus 21:16

    There’s a contradiction by definition. That the contradiction can be explained and that some insist it is even superseded by a “greater” law, does not change the fact of the contradiction. Further, the contradiction does not negate the clarity of the instruction in those sections.

  34. Robin: That the contradiction can be explained and that some insist it is even superseded by a “greater” law

    If only there was some being that could ‘look ahead’ and see how things turned out then change things now to suit.

    Hmm, that whole ‘imply slavery is bad’ thing will not really work out, I’d better be explicit.

  35. petrushka:
    It seems to me rather hazardous in a revealed religion to have entire chapters which people cannot understand or agree on.

    How many people have been killed or tortured or imprisoned for having an unacceptable interpretation?

    On the other hand, how many people misinterpret I=E/R?

    Quite so. If I were to write something like the bible in my line of work, I’d be fired.

    For a really good lesson in your very point, people should try the exercise of reading The Silmarillion, including the parts in Quenya and Khuzdul. Then doe the additional exercise of reading Sigurd and Gudrun and trying to figure out where it fits in.

  36. Patrick: I don’t think anyone is arguing that the bible as a whole advocates slavery, but there are clear passages that do sanction the practice and none that explicitly disavow it.

    There are many reason why the bible isn’t a great moral guide, this is one.

    Hi Patrick

    A couple of points:

    1 – Judaism is different than Christianity. The former is far more sophisticated than the later and as a result, you and Keiths are guilty of straw man arguments.

    2 – Specifically, the sages understood revelation to be ongoing and continual just as creation is ongoing and continual (didn’t happen in 6 days dontchya know) and that humans were specifically charged to engage and participate with both ongoing creation and an ongoing revelation such that any moral code (such as it is) evolved. That is one reason for my own fascination and respect for yiddishkeit.

    3 – regarding your (and Keiths) contention that

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that the bible as a whole advocates slavery, but there are clear passages that do sanction the practice and none that explicitly disavow it.

    Yeah yeah… I get it! You missed the point! Please reread my argument in

    Slavery in the Bible


    … where I explain

    My contention is that coauthors of the Bible struggled with this issue but their hands were tied; they could not “explicitly” contradict the word of God already written. Therefore, they needed to do so implicitly and in doing so, they did in fact provide moral guidance you claim is absent in the Bible.

    You are failing to recognize the Talmudic rules of engagement where the rabbinic sages are for all intents and purposes rewriting the Bible although they would not deign to admit as much! You may want to check up on “Pardes” refering to alternate types of biblical exegesis in Judaism.

    One of the reasons the Hebrew Testament is a great moral guide is because it provokes reaction and demands improvement/revision and even states as much (ergo my earlier Deuteronomy citation above, but we are getting bogged down here).

    This is becoming very esoteric, but the term Israel means to “wrestle with God”. The Hebrew Bible is in fact a Testament of Jews wrestling with God not to mention their perceived indignation with God and always demanding better of God.

    For just one example – Abraham appealed to God to spare Sodom by challenging God he was supposed to be “a just God”. Abraham’s challenge:

    “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?”

    Throughout the Hebrew Testament, God is educating and bringing the Jews to ever higher levels even as the Law is reexamined and modified as Jews learn their lessons and move on… There are overtones of what I am saying in the Christian Testament – but at a far more rudimentary and elementary level.

    Meanwhile Jews are wrestling and even challenging God by holding God to a higher standard… the symmetry is quite exquisite.

    I really have no business discussing this with you – I really am obliged by my former teachers not to bring this to gentile attention.

    I will just leave with a parable that was publicly stated by a learned rabbi from the bima:

    God stopped talking to Abraham. Why? God “tested” Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham was prepared to comply without argument. In other words, Abraham FAILED the test! What should Abraham have done differently? Abraham should have “wrestled” with God – argued with God at the prima facie injustice and wrongness of God’s word! Well, Issac’s life was spared by the hand of an angel but God never spoke to Abraham again.

    You Patrick are succeeding where Abraham failed – and that is the highest compliment I can ever pay you!

    best regards

  37. t would appear there is a way to feel morally superior both to those that believe and those who disbelieve.

  38. I think it’s incredibly sad that generation after generation of effort is wasted in the sort of study that Tom mentions.

    In the UK at the moment there are issues with illegal Jewish schools that are under the radar and turn out children who are totally unprepared to deal with the modern world.

    A witness statement submitted to the government consultation says: “I attended illegal schools between the age of 7 and 16…. Hitting children was part of routine; I was personally hit almost on a daily basis.

    “A typical day would start at 8 in the morning, finishing at 10 in the evening. We would sit all day and study our religious texts… We were bred in racism, sexism and bigotry… Libraries, internet, TV, radio, social media or any other source of contact with, or information about, the world around us was strictly banned.

    “We didn’t know who the at-the-time prime minister was, or for that matter, any information about current events, e.g. the royal wedding, or Olympic Games.

    “Most of us couldn’t even speak a most basic form of English, thus practically ensuring that any interaction with the outside world is disabled.”

    Time to put away childish things…..

  39. petrushka:

    t would appear there is a way to feel morally superior both to those that believe and those who disbelieve.

    Hi Petrushka –

    I do not understand… calling somebody a “wrestler” who is succeeding where Abraham failed is a compliment of the highest order. Patrick or Keiths are in NO WAY morally inferior to anything I am suggesting (to the contrary they emulate the efforts of those I hold in highest esteem) even though I think we all agree both are morally superior to pontificating pious talking heads that persistently infest these fora.

    best regards

  40. OMagain:
    I think it’s incredibly sad that generation after generation of effort is wasted in the sort of study that Tom mentions.

    In the UK at the moment there are issues with illegal Jewish schools that are under the radar and turn out children who are totally unprepared to deal with the modern world.

    Time to put away childish things…..

    Agreed – study of Talmud should never be a replacement to education but only a elective adjunct.

    Ditto Islamic Madrassa

    best

  41. Robin: Quite so. If I were to write something like the bible in my line of work, I’d be fired.

    Especially if you wrote something like Ezekiel 23:19-20 (assuming you don’t work in the adult entertainment field).

  42. TomMueller:
    . . .
    1 – Judaism is different than Christianity.The former is far more sophisticated than the later and as a result, you and Keiths are guilty of straw man arguments.
    . . . .

    I don’t disagree. My argument is not with Jews or even with more liberal Christians. I’m focused on the positions of inerrantists like fifthmonarchyman that would be silly if they weren’t so evil.

    This is becoming very esoteric, but the term Israel means to “wrestle with God”.The Hebrew Bible is in fact a Testament of Jews wrestling with God not to mention their perceived indignation with God and always demanding better of God.
    . . .
    Meanwhile Jews are wrestling and even challenging God by holding God to a higher standard…the symmetry is quite exquisite.

    I really have no business discussing this with you – I really am obliged by my former teachers not to bring this to gentile attention.

    It’s a good thing I’m not one of those, then. 😉

    While I see no evidence of any god or gods, the wrestling metaphor maps well to some aspects of my meditation practice. Thanks for sharing that.

  43. TomMueller: we all agree both [keiths and Patrick] are morally superior [to other types of know-it-alls]

    About the same, IMHO.

    So, I have no idea whether you’re right about the Bible and slavery, but I have a pretty good idea that you’re not a good judge of what “we all” agree about.

Leave a Reply