Thank you so much for having me on again! ☺️🙌

It would have been so simple for an omnipotent god to write "slavery is bad" anywhere in his inerent book.

I was talking to a Christian one day, and he said "Slavery is a good thing, because it gives people opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise get." yeah, because I'm pretty sure the Cannanite slaves got opportunities, and African slaves just got the opportunity to get a free holiday on a cruise ship... /sarcasm.

It’s nice to hear unconvoluted biblical analysis on important topics. I didn’t leave the church long ago and am still trying to undo the gaslighting😕.

I actually think taking slaves to keep prisoners from mustering a rebellion is actually a great rationale, since people in the South never worried about slave uprisings.

Frank Turek is the Home Shopping Network version of a Christian apologist.

I believe that "less than ideal" very well summarizes Frank's stance on the entire matter. Damn, but that guy's a jerk.

Yep. They have to pretend it doesn't say a lot of things to keep it appealing.

I’ve had SO many conversations with Christians who will tell me that God would have had no reason to include a law like “thou shall not own another human as property”, because humans are inherently sinful and wouldn’t listen anyway. I find this SO bizarre considering the numerous very obscure laws that the OT does include. Like not to boil a goat on its mother’s milk, or how to handle a woman who grabs the testicles of a man that is fighting with her husband. For some reason god needed obscure laws that he didn’t expect people to follow forever, but avoided more “obvious” moral laws since he assumed we’d just know them already. What being written on our hearts and all.

Asking apologists questions is like hugging a slime eel: it never works and leaves you regretful and slightly disgusted.

hi Paul, know this is off topic but I really just wanted to thank you for your support the last time i commented. I have improved my environment and gotten a lot people off me by limiting myself in online discussions and getting away from people who treated negatively in the past. also I appreciate Shannon's video on debunking the idea that religion is a mental illness. As a Christian with autism and oCd the stigmatization and bullying of people with mental health is a problem that has affected me personally.

My follow up question when someone is ok with slavery is if they're ok with me owning one of their family members and beating them to within an inch of their life. Usually not ok with that. Funny how perspective can change things

If Job claims that he didn't mistreat his slaves and expects leniency because of it, it means that there were other slave owners who did mistreat their slaves.

I remember paulogia in 2015! You've come so far and your content has consistently been amazing.

Frank's voice and attitude grates me. He denies evolution too. How people can still deny evolution is beyond me. I think even the catholics have kind of accepted it now.

"No one would condone slavery". Yeah, about that. Even in developed nations there are people who do that. 7:18 "All men are made in the image of God, slave and master are equally human, protected and one in Christ". I'm missing something here, if "slave and master" are "equal" then would they not be slave and master? Their relationship is inherently one of inequality. If all men are made equal, then there shouldn't really be such relationships.

Apologists are morally bankrupt.

That Kent Hovind impresssion is scarily accurate. For a second I thought it was him. xD

I had an argument with an old friend who turned Christian and preaches it daily. I put up a scripture peter 2:18. And the first word was "slave" and then it goes on to read ...'obey your earthly masters etc... Response from two people saying I take it out of context, and that it was more of an employee/employer type deal. I said they actually use the word slave. A response I got from my ol friend was that his bible had servant(s). And that in the time of Peter their "employees" were not treated badly.

I absolutely love the stark comparison of "The bible is the unquestionable, perfect word of the lord" and "The old testament was forward-facing and is to be supplanted by the new testament". Frank truly is one of the apologists of all time.

Did anyone point out to Turek, that when he quoted Jesus saying all people are equal before God, that Jesus also said he would not change one word of the law (law = Old Test)

Probably the best moment of any debate I've watched was when Dr. Josh and Matt Dillahunty were debating two Christians on this topic, and asked them: "Would you be my slave if we were back in Old Testament times?" The long pause of silence that came from the Christians after that question was asked...was PRICELESS.

Also, the entire Book of Job is about Job having no idea what Yahweh would or would not do, and that Yahweh has the intrinsic right to be a petty psychopath who harms innocent people.

I love how turek is using "everyone knows right and wrong already" when it suits him,but somehow when you apply it to described laws/behaviour in that funny book.. suddenly you don't have standard to judge that.

Here's a question that they can never answer. If biblical slavery "wasn't so bad", then why did Moses go to such great lengths to get his people out of Egypt?

Amazing the double standards of the religious. Christians will condemn the atrocities carried out gods in the Quran and other holy books. Then turn around and make excuses justifying/excusing the exact same atrocities by the biblical god in the Bible.

When I lived in Spain, a Christian brother frequently quoted to me a verse that is repeated in the Old Testament (New English Translation) Exodus 22:21 “You must not wrong a resident foreigner nor oppress him, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. Here are three other verses I would like to highlight before explaining: Exodus 23:9 “You must not oppress a resident foreigner, since you know the life of a foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34 The resident foreigner who lives with you must be to you as a native citizen among you; so you must love the foreigner as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 10:19 So you must love the resident foreigner because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I have heard this verse often used in the context of immigrants, strangers, visitors, travelers ... even though the NET renders it as resident foreigners. But I'd never heard it used in the context of slavery. What is interesting, is that all the slaves that Israel had, if they obeyed God's law, were resident foreigners - never fellow Israelites. AND, when Israel lived as foreigners in Egypt, they were also slaves in Egypt. So even if the Israelites had "slaves", they were commanded to love their slaves, and treat their slaves they way they themselves wanted to be treated (and should have been treated when they lived in Egypt). Israel knew what it was liked to be oppressed, to be victims. It was no fun. So they are commanded not to be oppressors and not to create victims. The only way one of their slaves could be a "victim" of slavery, is if Israel was directly disobeying God's command. There is no way that victims were created, no way that oppression was practiced, if God's commands concerning slavery (foreigners) were carried out. Other renderings of "do not wrong or oppress a foreigner" include: Do not deceive Do not mislead Do not take advantage of Do not exploit Do not use them as objects for your personal gain Do not give them any grief Do not give them a hard time Do not make their life difficult Do not place burdens on them that you yourselves would not be happy to bear Give them justice - do not practice injustice or unfairness Treat them as equals, equality and equity Another side note is that any foreign slave could be freed from slavery if they became an Israelite through circumcision. If a foreign slave became part of the covenant people of God, that person was not allowed to be held as a slave. A fellow Israelite was not allowed to be made a slave against that person's will. (It is hard to imagine, with our concepts of slavery, that anyone would willingly become a slave, but it is not unheard of in the OT concept of slavery for a person to do so.) On the other hand, a foreigner should not become an Israelite without sincerely covenanting with the God of Israel. You wouldn't want to have any false conversions just for people to get out of slavery. This is something that blacks in the American south did not even have as an option. One would think that - applied the same way as OT biblical slavery - if a black became a Christian and got baptized, they would automatically be freed from slavery because no Christian could hold a fellow Christian as a slave. (assuming the slaveowners were at least nominal Christians). I don't know how much Israel followed or disobeyed God's commands concerning slavery, but what is very clear from these verses about foreigners is that IN NO WAY did God command Israel to do to anyone what the Southern slaveowners and international slave traders did to black Africans in the past 500 years. In fact, it was quite and totally the opposite. God did not simply "allow chattel slavery" to accommodate the spiritual maturity level of the Israelites or because it was so ingrained in the culture. He gave direct commands that in no way were the Israelites supposed to do to anyone else what was done to them in Egypt. The same slavery God opposed when the Israelites were oppressed in Egypt and God delivered them is the same slavery that God prohibited His people from carrying out against any other human being. The only slavery that God permitted for the Israelites to carry out was the polar opposite of the oppression and injustice of chattel slavery. The permission to have foreigners as slaves was conditional on the direct command to love the foreigner. Love took precedence over slavery. According to Mosaic law, if there was no way to practice perfect love and justice (equality) towards the foreigner AND have the foreigner as a slave at the same time, then the only logical lawful conclusion is that the slave would have to be released in the name of love. The only way a slave could be retained as a slave is if the slave had the same treatment as what the Israelite would want, and in a love and justice relationship. Again, whether Israel did that or not is another story. But don't let it be said that God condoned, much less commanded, the type of slavery that was in any way unjust or oppressive!

Josh's Kent gets better every time.

I really had to watch this video in chunks. This is one of those topics that when I hear the excuses and word twisting it makes my blood boil.

As long as it wasn't chattle butlery, it's morally permissible. Also, biblical butlery wasn't as bad as the Trans-Atlantic butler trade.

I love J W Wallace's recent video on slavery and genocide. He includes the line (paraphrased because lazy) 'often the slaves entered into this situation voluntarily', and then talks exclusively about them without mentioning the non-voluntary ones at allllll. Dude knows its bad and doesn't know how to defend it, but accidentally implied the system was perfectly within jewish law without realising.

Fun fact: Dutch theologian Jacobus Capitein in the 18th Century wrote a theological dissertation to defend slavery on Biblical grounds. He was an ex-slave from Ghana.

❤THANK YOU to Dr. Bowen for knowing that the singular form of "criteria" is "criterion." Hardly anybody on KZfaq seems to understand that, or "phenomenon" and "phenomena."

Why on earth would god want to outlaw slavery, when he insists, on penalty of eternal punishment, that we are all his slaves? He demands utter submission, adoration, and worship forever and ever. God is the archetypal slave master.

The last time I have read the bible, it's written that they called them "slaves" not "butlers" or "assistants"🤣🤣🤣🤣

This kind of decyphering drove me UP the WALL for years. As others have commented, why can't rules and regulations be plain to read, for all people for all eternity?! Why do we have to interpret the rules of life itself?

Damn, that book would have been useful for my essay discussing the influence of Babylonian law on Jewish law I did for my Ancient Syro-Palastein class last Fall. I got a A without it though it would have saved me a lot of work.

These same verses were in the bible when they supported slavery. Nothing changed there so he didn’t come close to answering the question.

More people need to say “Baloney!” right to Franks face like that.

Also, in regards to 1st Timothy 1:9-10, why should we even care what it says anyway? The Pastoral Epistles (1st & 2nd Timothy, along with Titus) are considered to be forgeries by modern scholars.

Woooo! Slavery! ... er, I mean, Josh!

It doesn't seem like the Bible endorses slavery so much as acknowledges it as a fact of life and cannot foresee any other condition. This is what tells me it is the product of the human mind, and not divine.

I was recently reading up on the Battle of Gettysburg and that led me to look into the life of Confederate General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. It seems that (for his time) he was quite a compassionate man and treated his six slaves very well. It also appears that he worked quite hard at the education of the blacks in his neighborhood. I was particularly interested to read what James I. Robertson Jr. (considered the preeminent scholar on Jackson) wrote about him: "Jackson neither apologized for nor spoke in favor of the practice of slavery. He probably opposed the institution. Yet in his mind the Creator had sanctioned slavery, and man had no moral right to challenge its existence. The good Christian slaveholder was one who treated his servants fairly and humanely at all times." And this, I think is the rub about biblical slavery. It seems that Jackson was an altogether pretty decent fellow. Worked hard for his fellow man. But read the bible and it said "Black man is son of Ham and MEANT to be slave, so who am I to reject that?" It's just repulsive that this book is still considered by many to be 'absolutely top notch'.

They clapped😮! I am from the Caribbean, I live near a former plantation… I find these debates vile…

Paul, when my child grows up, I will be using your videos like sunday school videos if they're curious about christianity.

OMG Paulogia and Dr Josh together again. Two of the nicest people on the internet.

Yay! Dr. Josh

I find so many keyboard slavery apologists under my videos when this topic comes up. Im so thankful this video was done by you Paul!

I hope that SOMEDAY Americans will not judge everything based on their history or lack of knowledge of the world.

First, love me some Dr. Josh's insight into Old Testament Slavery. Second, I've evolved my argument in regards to Slavery within Christianity. Besides the obvious items in the Bible, I highlight the 1800+ years of slavery within Christianity. Actions speak much louder than words....

Anytime someone says they support slavery I always tell them I do too and that they will be my first slave. This usually confuses them and shuts them down almost instantly.

"Better to be a happy idiot than someone who knows the truth" - Michael Scott If you have peacock, I highly recommend watching The Office (U.S.) Superfan episodes.

“Treat your fellow man the way you want to be treated” that about covers it 😅

The Florida governor seems ok with slavery. Bummer.

Do those people think that we are not capable of reading for content? I'm pretty sure we're not their audience.

Thanks for the book recommendation. 😁

How many specious interpretations by biblical apologists are necessary to see a pattern of covering up the fact that the bible is no more than a fictional account? One that has a few things like places and events that are used to buttress the claims that mythology is actual fact? Whether it is Genesis, The flood of Noah, Noah's Ark, Exodus, prophecies, etc., all have in common the focus of explaining away discrepancies and impossibilities through a vast network of "coulda's".

"Bible" and "Slavery" are like the BAT SIGNAL for Dr Josh. Best Wishes, DOC

Dr. Josh, I love to read, but I can't read with my eyes for any length of time without suffering. Also, I have purchased and read every audiobook you have had published. Do you think you will be putting out an audiobook version of this new second edition? I know it can be cost prohibitive, but it would be appreciated by others like me, as well as those who prefer to their consume their reading material while doing other things.

You cant logic people out of a position they dident logic themselves into

3:00 that nobody would make today.... Florida Republicans: hold my Margarita

The fact their own tribe was spared from slavery (theoretically) proves that it WAS along racial lines, they simply drew them differently than the ones we draw today based on skin color. Their racial categories were different, but they did in fact exist. "Race" has not always meant what it means to us.

Dr Bowen's statement in the intro is demoralizing. I imagine its painful to hear people support slavery.

People do crazy amounts of mental gymnastics in order to maintain their beliefs.

Love that part at the end "baloney" best way to call out Frank's lies.

Hmm, I can't avoid noticing that when it's convenient to apologists, they are very content at quote-mining the bible, yet when confronted with morally questionable passages "you gotta read the whole context". Hmm, interesting...

These grasps at trying to make it seem like the bible doesnt endorse slavery is quite revealing, a clear display that even when its so clear that just cant allow their book to be seen as imperfect in any way cause their whole worldview is based on it being perfect

On the one hand, I really like Josh's work. However, on the other hand, I wonder why he upped his 200 and some page book to a 700 and some page book? An attempt at double-dipping, perhaps? Now, I do not disparage anyone from writing books and trying to make a dollar off of it, as I'm a capitalist at heart. However, in this case, it looks as if he were trying to sell the same book twice by holding back part of it, and then publishing it later as a "New Edition". I'm not saying that's what he did, but it's awfully suss.

The Wholly Fables aka the Bible most definitely endorses slavery both Old and New Testament. But theists will point out and even justify the indentured servitude but will outright ignore the chattel slavery. That's in the Bible.

First Timothy is one of the pseudepigraphic letters. I.e., almost certainly not written by Paul, but by later Christians using Paul’s name to promote their own version of Christianity. So how much ‘faith’ should anyone put in what amounts to a forgery? And why would an all powerful god even allow forgeries in its sacred book?

Shermer: "Nobody would say slavery was good today." Florida: Hold my beer

Christianity generally conforms to the prevailing moral standards. In 19th century America, the churches in areas with slavery accepted if not condoned slavery. Churches in other areas opposed it.

I guess I'm glad Frank sounds kinda sorta against slavery. Whether he's fairly interpreting the bible to reach his position is moot to me. I don't believe it's possible to interpret the bible consistently and fairly as a whole. So reinterpreting Christianity to make it more moral, despite the bible's instructions, is something I approve of.

"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 will 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

I see many places in the Bible where the word "servant" or " bondservant" is used, and many places where the word "slave" is used. It would appear that the Israelites had two different words for those two different concepts, so why in those passages that discuss slavery if what is meant is servant is the word slave used instead? Did the Israelites not know the difference? Did the writers or the translators make a mistake?

To shut down proslavery arguments one should counter initially,that anyone in favor of slavery ought to be the first to volunteer to be one.

Given Florida is passing curriculum that demands the teaching of "benefits" of slavery, this isn't particularly surprising.

Do Christians even still think Frank Turek is an effective apologist?

Dr. Josh, just pre-ordered the 2nd edition of your book! Please debate Frank on his false claims and misuse of verses to pretend the bible doesn't okay slavery front start to finish. I love Shermer but he's not as expert as you on the text and context to correct Franks errors. And if you do debate Frank don't give his lies an inch! 🥊

The Bible is the Word of God and means what it says -- except when it doesn't.

Ron DeMonic... "Hey, slavery's good again? (Republican) Party time!"

I guess I was hoping for more here. You finally did a video on slavery in the Bible, and it's just Dr. Josh? Don't get me wrong, I love Josh, and if you're going to have someone else explain it he's the guy. Much like you use Bart. I'm not trying to be an a hole here at all, but I miss when you used to go in depth on an issue yourself. You're SO good at that Paul! To me, you could have done a series on this subject much like you used to do on more complicated and nuanced subjects in the past. I still refer to some of them as a source on many subjects on a regular basis. A wealth of great insightful information, presented in a fair way. I miss those, and this would have been a perfect opportunity for you to get back to that. At least once?

Whenever you have a debate with a Christian about slavery in the Bible, the first half hour _at least_ can be done by playing a sound clip over and over again: "But what about Leviticus 25:44-46?" Only after you hammered down all their excuses, distractions and evasions you can talk with a few of them.

When the USA abolished slavery, those who opposed it where brandishing their bible to affirm that owning slaves was a god given right. They insisted that their slaves where not even real humans, but subhumans. For the peoples of the time, there where basically two races : Them and everybody else. For the jews, then AND now, there are the jews, the chosen race, and the gentile, the not chosen who are barely above cattle. My personal experience living near a jewish community and working for a jewish boss 100% support that. From your race, you may only have indentured slaves that you must release after some time. From the «other» race, you are welcome to have slaves, and those are your perpetual property. The bible endorsed and even demanded the later.

Just the fact the bible has apologist shows there's a lot wrong with that sick bible

If there are laws specifically banning kidnapping free people to be sold as slaves or laws giving some escaped slaves refuge those are not anti-slavery laws. They presume the existence of slavery.

Will the second edition be in print as well, or just as an ebook?

I love to point out to evangelicals making the “biblical slavery wasn’t that bad” argument that the Roman Republic fought three wars to put down slave uprisings-the First, Second, and Third Servile Wars. In other words, a critical mass of Roman slaves decided, on three separate occasions, that they would rather die than be slaves. But it “wasn’t that bad.” Uh-huh

next time a christian uses Galatians to prove christianity abolished slavery, i’ll ask them about gender abolition using the same verse.

Terrifying.

Frank offers his followers a buffet of excuses. Don't like the prawn cocktail of "endentured servitude"? Well, how about the mini sausages of "all equal under Christ"?

I never cease to learn something

Didn’t Paul write an epistle telling slaves to obey their masters?

*God is the clay & humanity the sculptor ;* More like, _"made in our image"._

Is slavery synonymous with abuse of other people? If the answer is yes, I'm opposed to slavery. But if it's not synonymous, I'm indifferent to it.

Thanks for the video

I’d take out a loan for 5 million if I had my whole life to pay it back, probably make a toy company.

Thank you.

Is Dr. Bowen's book peer reviewed? I'm generally reluctant to use self-published books as academic references.

Well that was hell of an intro