kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z5aKgMiJqK2Rk2w.html

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nKthe9ppv9i6pIk.html

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKiCktOS3N_KZaM.html

www.gty.org/library/bibleqnas-library/BQ010813/what-is-scriptures-view-of-slavery

www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-did-god-permit-slavery

medium.com/koinonia/exodus-21-gods-view-of-slavery-and-civil-rights-f170f8fbe6ee

Search up slavery and the Bible explained on web search or on KZfaq for more

www.theologyofwork.org/old-testament/exodus-and-work/israel-at-mount-sinai-exodus-191-4038/instructions-about-work-exodus-201-17-and-211-239/case-laws-in-the-book-of-the-covenant-exodus-211-2333/slavery-or-indentured-servitude-exodus-211-11

m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZttypM6LktOXiH0.html

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-wrong-say-bible-pro-slavery/%3famp

www.bethinking.org/bible/does-the-bible-support-slavery

emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04/does-the-bible-condone-slavery

This is a fundamentalist view, it does simply mean if a master takes a tooth out, then slave could leave, this is Lex talionis, punishment resembles the offence committed. www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/pdf/Justin%20Ilboudo_Research%20Paper.pdf Also you have to create a scenario that fits the the Bible in its entirety along with Exodus 21, Leviticus 25, Deuteronomy 23, Jeremiah 34, Colossians 4 etc You have to nuance the passages you are highlighting with the Bible in its entirety. Again we are coming to crossroads, the concept of slavery in the theocracy of Israel was a social system, a means to allow people to clear debts, vindicate crimes, equally for those from other countries this would have been far greater than where they once were, see point 8 in video. Reality, just because someone was called slave, servant, worker, king, shepherd, all our terms that do not reduce the identity of the person, but are legal terms- see modern day examples given in other comments. In order to be bought you first have to be sold, I did say the Israelites could buy from other nations in order to attain these people legally. However, now that they belong to the Israelites, they are in the theocracy and are no longer under these foreign nations regulations but Gods. So exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 23 are applicable. Property, possession, inheritance, forever, I did not deviate away from the Hebrew meaning, much like the Hebrew for slave, but rather I gave the meaning of what these concepts are in today’s understanding. Israelite kings later tried to institute forced slavery, for example Solomon (1 Kings 9:15) and Rehoboam with Adoniram (1 Kings 12:18). Both fell from favor in God’s sight and were found to follow after evil (1 Kings 11:6; 2 Chronicles 12:14). Slaves under the Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies; they were more like servants or bondservants. The Bible doesn’t give an endorsement of slave traders but just the opposite (1 Timothy 1:10). A slave/bondservant was acquired when a person voluntarily entered into it when he needed to pay off his debts. The Bible recognizes that slavery is a reality in this sin-cursed world and doesn’t ignore it, but instead gives regulations for good treatment by both masters and servants and reveals they are equal under Christ. Israelites could sell themselves as slaves/bondservants to have their debts covered, make a wage, have housing, and be set free after six years. Foreigners could sell themselves as slaves/bondservants as well. Biblical Christians led the fight to abolish harsh slavery in modern times. Apologies earlier, reaffirm that all translations say Hebrew not male, however, do highlight though the personal pronouns that (jubilee) strictly relating to males. A Hebrew male could sell himself into servitude for his labor (to cover his debts, and so on) and be released after six years. A Hebrew female could be sold into servitude, with permission of her father, not for labor purposes but for marriage. Verse 8 discusses breaking faith with her, which means that they have entered into a marriage covenant (see Malachi 2:14). This stopped men from trading women in every six years, instead allowed them to focus on the sanctity of marriage. answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/ Leviticus 24- talks about how no harm should be brought to any person or animal! Including those from other nations. This preceded the carpeted that includes the two verses highlighted. Exodus 22:21 - Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Deut 10:19 - And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. Jubilee was not applicable to foreigners as they had no land to be redeemed, thus, when it says forever, this was optional (pair this with Deuteronomy 23) Yes Deuteronomy 24:7 is talking about Israelites specifically, this has no bearing on how all people, from foreign nations are to be treated with respect. I don’t know any passages about their being prisoners of war, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says slaves can leave. 1 Samuel 17:8-9 is the closest we have, Goliath says they will be their servants, not God, instead the Israelites pursued the philistines as far as Gath. God called for complete separation of Israel to other nations, Gods laws were instituted and Israel were to follow them in all that they did. connect.rzim.org/t/leviticus-25-45-46/18194/8 Children do not appear in these commands so you have to infer what you are saying, however, if we are to take everything that has been said in all links, comments videos, description, consent was important... Exodus 21:16. So if children could not consent, then we can infer they would not have been considered slaves of any kind- especially when slave/servant entailed some form of function, children could not do this. “Children born to them in the third generation may enter the assembly of the Lord.” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭23:8‬ ‭ESV‬‬ www.bible.com/59/deu.23.8.esv Verse 15:16 of Deuteronomy are talking about the principle of a master and their servants and the ability to leave remain the same for all, even though it addresses foreign nations in the preceding verses, still think it is applicable for all, especially when the verses after talk about Israel in further detail. However, they would be under the protection of the master, most foreigners, sojourners would have no land themselves, no stability, provision, purpose nor protection. Within the theocracy of Israel this slave/servant role would have provided all those things and we can infer that nearly all would have accepted this invitation to be given/assigned as an inheritance forever. I believe this is the most accurate representation of the Bible, the heart of God, from creation, to the new heaven and new earth. Agree- Onesimus means ‘useful,’ ‘beneficial,’ I was wrong to infer that’s what his name meant- misread a source, rather that is what Paul referred to Onesimus as, “no longer slave but beloved brother.” That’s why I appreciate this dialogue, I am constantly learning and developing the finer details as I am so young still. Paul is not sending him back as a slave, but that he receive him as a beloved brother, tethers needs to be an understanding of sin, there needs to be an understanding of unity, “May the God who gives strength and encouragement also give you a spirit of unity” The Bible says that we should be one just as Jesus is one with God, John 17:21, God desires unity not division, God desires reconciliation and forgiveness. So understanding all of this, understanding that Philemon was a dear brother who was responsible for where a church was gather, it was essential that any sin was confessed, relationships were restored and reconciliation takes place. So understanding the whole Bible, Jesus, Paul’s transformation, Gods commandment for unity and forgiveness, Paul’s motive was not this is a slave going to his master, but he literally addresses both parties in question as brothers. I mentioned Colossians as there is a central importance of love and forgiveness, that Philemon was the leader of the church in Colossae, so there could be a correlation, that both Philemon and Colossians were sent together, but forgiveness and unity is a central focus. Deuteronomy 23: 15-16, Israelites where under jubilee and all laws highlighted. Whilst these laws talk about those from other nations, that if they escaped they were free from the oppression of the slavery of other nations (slavery as we know it) Leviticus 25: 45-46, alternatively if they couldn’t escape Israelites could buy them, however, Nuance with Exodus and thoughts said earlier, consent would be important as they couldn’t buy slaves, so buy legally from the other nation, but in the theocracy they were under all laws of God. Means of escape from foreign slavery was escape as document by Deuteronomy 23, however, also by Israelites freeing them through buying them Leviticus 25. Also, if the slave they could buy had of escaped 10 mins before the Israelite bought them, the Israelite is now under Deuteronomy 23, freedom of the slave in question was of paramount importance. But now the slave was bought they aren’t granted that same freedom. The principle of freedom is something in this passage which should be extracted. The video, description, links and articles I have put in go into far more detail! And will answer many questions you may have, I fell we have exhausted the comments section lol So try the links, the wide variety of literature on this, I will take what you have said and will continue to research counter arguments or the other point of view.

Hey brother, appreciate the comment, I shall research more on what you said and access the links. With regards to Noah’s ark and it’s plausibility, I believe God created the universe out of nothing so it logically follows that sustaining, protecting and providing for his creation through and on ark was easy. Science is based on that which is predicated unrepeatable sequences, however you are presupposing certain conditions to come to those conclusions. A flood would have radically altered the conditions to the point as we now have them. Food storage, as well as God providing food, perhaps like he did with the Israelites. Old Testament was written in Hebrew, New Testament in Greek, then there was the Latin vulgate, then in English, however this highlighting the reality of differing languages, translation was inevitable. The meaning remains the same, although the words use to convey them change. You are highlighting an imposed view, however, historically the New Testament letters were recognised as being from God, due to the apostolic authority bestowed that is traceable. This was then formulated at the council of Nicaea as you alluded too. I vehemently oppose slavery as you do, that is not what I am arguing, when I read the Bible it is a story of love. We have been given the gospel, salvation! We preach only liberty and freedom. I simply presented the most common interpretation, which I believe is correct and fits in with whole Bible. We need to be practical in our love and how we achieve equality in all spheres of society. However, my focus was to present historically what slavery within the theocracy of Israel, within today’s language, it would be described as servitude. The laws in place would have assured the slavery that we despise and oppose did not take place. Kenyatta’s quote, I do not deny the sinful nature of man and peoples abuse of not just the Bible but anything that is good, such as Einstein’s E=mc2, which would later be used to establish the atom bomb. I also don’t agree that all Christianity is based on white supremacy, as it’s origin is the Middle East, whereby most people, including Jesus would have been coloured, black, swarthy skin etc. Galatians 3:28, “there is neither salve nor free... for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” God has given you prerogative, choice to accept him as lord/ master, or as you said, reject him and be your own master, to which there is subsequent punishment. Thankyou for engaging again, I will watch your videos, constantly looking to learn! Both slave and servant are under the umbrella term of ‘Ebed,’ thus there were close links between the two. The difference, a slave was one who would permanently reside in their masters house, whilst a servant would leave and work a set amount of hours. This is excluding the holistic narrative of the Bible which conveys universal love, justice- passages highlighted in description and video, as well as various other factors. Thus, we cannot apply slavery as we know it and impose this concept and meaning on the Bible. If you read the description of this video, as well as look at the links provided, more detail is given, however the Bible in Exodus 21 condemns the trading of slaves with regards to buying and selling. If you read the description of this video, as well as look at the links provided, more detail is given, however the Bible in Exodus 21 condemns the trading of slaves with regards to buying and selling. If you read the description of this video, as well as look at the links provided, more detail is given, however the Bible in Exodus 21 condemns the trading of slaves with regards to buying and selling. Jesus said in Luke 4 his vocation was to free the oppressed, as highlighted in video and description. Jesus was also referring to the OT, showing OT and NT parallelism. Jesus taught to love your neighbour as your love yourself and love the lord your God with all your heart, if all humans abided in this, slavery as we know it would not have come into fruition. (Again OT/ NT parallelism) As well as the moral law that was written on our hearts (Romans 2: 12-16), which convicts us and gives understanding of what is right and wrong. www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-wrong-say-bible-pro-slavery/%3famp Not only this link, but there are hundreds of thousands of books, articles, journals, commentaries, videos, podcasts that all affirm what has been argued. Paul ONLY helped this one slave whom he knew, you are affirming something that I don’t is historically attest-able. Instead we have a whole letter relating to Paul asking Philemon to treat Onesimus not as a bond servant but brother. Regardless of whether Paul knew Onesimus, partiality is not a factor in Paul’s motive, instead as a former Jew he had a correct understanding of the law and how it was to be applied, as well as the merging of the salvation he had attained that was the fuel. Again Paul’s verses on slavery must be understand through the definitions highlighted, not today’s concepts. So it refers to Diakanos or Doulus meaning servant, or slave in much the same sense (with the additive that they remained where they worked). Master/ slave dynamic can be understood as an employee, employer relationship, Paul then stipulates that respect, honour, dignity, work ethic should be present, principles we can apply today. “We are not under the laws of the Old Testament but instead new,” But then you say the OT laws have not changed, we as Christians obey that which transcends from Old to New, that is the moral law, that is all created equal. In addition, you take isolated scriptures, however, this has a misapplication of the text in question, These laws are layered, interrelated, interconnected, we need to use them all to nuance with scripture. Chattel is never referred as it pertains to Gods commands and humans. Description and video provides more detail, property as a legal term, not a means to reduce the identity of the person. Inheritance within this context can be translated as assign, slaves could not be bought, Exodus 21:16, had to be consensual. Slaves could leave anytime Deuteronomy 23. You cannot beat your slaves to death- retributive punishment would be in place, this is self-evident from the text, Exodus 21:20-21. Laws were layered, verses 26-27, Lex talionis, punishment resembles the offence committed. God permits no harm to humans within the theocracy, that slaves would be freed from their economic agreement. You say there is no need for interpretation, however, you yourself are interpreting it to mean what you say, thus, your claim subverts itself. Luke 12:47-48, this is grossly taken out of context, raising questions to veracity of other claims made, as this is illustrative of bias. Jesus was using this as a metaphor to depict how all sin is not dealt by God the same way, instead, greater sins, qualitative and quantitative will be dealt with by God differently. Jesus tells a parable (story/ so fictional) in verses 35 onwards, in verse 45 it accounts the master disobeying what God had decreed and being violent, the subsequent punishment was this retributive justice. The principle of the parable is explained with the last verse... “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” ‭‭‭ESV‬‬ used throughout^^^ Word recommends does not appear. You highlight paradoxes, you can’t buy yet you can, these are resolved by remaining unchanged in the law that you cannot buy, however, from the other nations they would sell, to which Israelites would buy? However this was first to acquire them from the foreign nations ( which would have been bondage), then they would have then seek consent with the once slave who was now under Israel’s servitude system. Exodus 21/ Deuteronomy 23, slaves could leave at any point. ESV, NLT, NIV ( which you quoted from earlier and assume you quoted from here) KJV, ASV, all popular translations in circulation that are based on the original manuscripts do not say male- it is simply “Hebrew servant/slave” (Ebed) Thankyou so much for engaging! Your comments I will think upon and will help refine what I say. I agree, that beating when defined can be used for discipline and was done so out of love, like a parent with a child. Comparing Old Testament slavery to colonial slavery is a mistake, they are completely different, the context was different, it was race based, it was not in the theocracy with Israel, they clearly were in violation of the OT precepts on this.

Thinking of you mark and family From hollie

A truthful message from a man who realises and knows he needs God. God bless you brother