You are entitled to your opinion, but when you are unable to see the difference between being employed and being owned, you have seriously waved the white flag.
I'd love to see my employer keep me from my wife and kids until I sign a contract vowing to be a lifetime employee.
I see nothing honest about equating employment with being owned. Rather, I see a desperate effort to deny that this ghastly practice was approved by Yahweh. I know people who've practiced yoga for a decade who cannot do a better job of bending over backwards.
I didn't say child. I said daughter. This is a false dilemma. I note how you juxtapose "allowing their children to die" with selling a daughter into slavery, as if those were the only two options. Giving the child up for adoption would be a much better option than selling a daughter into slavery. Note also that this verse [Exodus 21:7 ff, which I will quote in full momentarily] says nothing whatsoever about the father's motivation (escaping poverty, debt, etc). And if it IS for those reasons, it is treating the girl as the father's property rather than his progeny. There are many more options available besides "selling my daughter as a sex slave" and "letting her die." ESPECIALLY for an omniscient God who is able to say "here's how you handle this situation." For a moral person, selling the child would not even make the list of options.
I'm not sure if I have enough time, but let's try and handle this verse with what time I have left..
Ex 21:7 "And when a man sells his daughter for a handmaid, she does not go out similar to the going out of the men-servants; if she is found evil in the eyes of her lord, so that he will not betroth her, then he must let her be bought back; to foreign people he has no power to sell her, in his unfair dealing with her. And if to his son he betroth her, according to the right of daughters he must do to her. If another [woman] he take for himself, her food, her covering, and her habitation, he shall not withdraw; and if these three he does not to her, then she shall leave freely, without money.
First, of course we are not talking about slavery. And while I realize you are trying to read a negative in the "does not go out similar to the men", it actually is the opposite. In other words, men have less rights. She has more and should not be treated as the men. She has more because of the custom with women. She still has the right to leave. However, the second sentence really details what we are talking about. And that is she was "sold" as a handmaid to be a wife.
It's important to note that it was actually rare for a man to marry anyone and NOT have paid for her. In fact any parents who did not sell their daughter for marriage(they all were considered a handmaid and an ebed, that was a normal term used) their parents would have been seen as dishonoring their daughter, their kin, and didn't care. Different than today were parents allow their child to go run free, have sex, marry whomever, and it's all good, let's not even mention the morality of the viruses these kids today pass on in their freedom. Yes, they were mostly all arranged marriages back then. And the marriage contract, which is what is mentioned in the second verse, was a commitment for life. I'm not sure how much exposure people have now days with arranged marriages, they are very common among Easterners, and I have quite a few friends who either are in arranged marriages or got out. And it's usually the guys who want out, even when they show me these great pictures of their arranged bride, I'm wondering they they would leave that for what we have in America. Lust gone wild. Irregardless of today, looking at the culture of then. In a family with sons and daughters, it was the way of life for the sons to marry(for a price) and bring their bride and build a place on their parents property and help their family. The daughter on the other hand, helped the parents, until it was time for her to be given in marriage for a price, that price represented the fact that she wouldn't be helping the family any more. Again, all life was centered around the family. And the loss of help was offset somewhat by the price the husband to be would pay. Remember Jacob working for many years to pay off Rachel's parents. Arranged marriages then and now wasn't done behind the daughters back as you seem to suggest or without her consent. The bride to be could just run off or refuse. But usually the parents who would be considered mature adults would have made sure it was a good household. Without money, though, there was no marriage. And yes,it was viewed as her labor in helping her family being sold to now help her new family whom she, her parents, the husband to be, the local priest, rabbi, and a host of others that would be involved in ensuring it was a good choice.
Having said all that. What we find in this section of the torah though is some issues that could arrise in this contract and how to deal with them. The brides family sells her off. But she may be found "evil". That is, what her parents and herself represented her as being, didn't happen to be the case. She wasn't a virgin, etc.. And while some may think they put undue stress on that, you only have to look at today's sexually transmitted diseases to understand why they would want purity. But hey, maybe it's moral to have sex with multiple partners, never check each time or think the condom is good enough, and just find out later that you just infected a host of other parties. So if "evil" was found, she can be redeemed, bought back. Basically the money the man paid, is given back. The "husband" has no right to sell her to a foreign nation. But it's possible, having paid money for a bride, and receiving someone who didn't match the bill of goods sold that a good amount of people would have been involved in, and the family didn't want her back either, then he has a few choices of what to do with this gal. He could do as Joseph did and decide to keep Mary as his wife. The next sentence then talks about if the original marriage was to his son, and not him and that she would have all the rights as any other daughter-in-law. And the last sentence is referring to any married woman, that they are to always be granted 3 things, and if ever they are not granted, the woman is free to go. The bride payment can not be recovered.
You are entitled to your opinion, but when you are unable to see the difference between being employed and being owned, you have seriously waved the white flag.
Like I said, prove me wrong. I gave the definition of the word.. The burden is now on you! How is it impossible to ignore those definitions and say you are not owned.
You don't employ an oxen or a draft horse in the same sense as you employ a human, you own it. What we're talking about here is, in essence, the concept of conscription (forced labor), putting humans in the same realm as work animals not negotiated contract employment (ebeddery). According to scripture, Yahweh approved of conscription. Please refer to the following scriptures for an expanded understanding of Biblical conscription: 1 Kings 9:21, Judges 1:28, Judges 1:35, 2 Chronicles 8:8.
Do you or do you not approve of conscripted labor?
edit: For the sake of clarity, let's leave the U.S. military draft out of the discussion. Agreed?
I stopped reading when he defended selling your daughter into slavery and claimed women have more rights than men. Maybe he is not more moral than Yahweh. But decent people are. I am honestly shocked.
One more time: when my employer has the right to keep my wife and son from me unless I agree to be an employee for life and have an awl driven through my ear to prove it, MAYBE I'll concede our employers own us rather than merely purchase our work product.
This is no longer a serious conversation. Defending the selling of daughters and saying it's not slavery ... just WOW.
Totally skipped the issue of polygamy. Totally misrepresented the sale of a slave as a bride price. Totally went full False Dilemma with selling a virgin being preferable to sleeping around with an STD infected whore. Totally ignored the (now completely relevant) fact that in the Torah, a woman who is not a virgin when she is married gets bleeping stoned to death . There are so many errors, fallacies and moral outrages in that one post that I think you have singlehandedly validated everything my thread title promises.
I shudder at the thought of you having a daughter if you think the verses we're discussing describe a moral way to treat her.
Regarding Exodus 21 supposedly NOT talking about slavery, please do a word study on the relevant verse, look at previous and later usages of the word, and say again with a straight face that it is talking about a regular "bride price" and not the selling of a slave. Note that her going free is not accompanied by a certificate of divorce. She just goes free.
Not to defend promiscuity, but do you believe a woman who is not a virgin when she gets married should be stoned to death? Yahweh does. Please tell me you are more moral than Yahweh.
I'm sitting in a courtroom right now and I just heard a judge tell someone how much freedom they have in prison. You are clothed, fed and housed. They check up on you, make sure you're healthy, drug free. Lots of time to exercise. No overly burdensome work. Free!
23:15 "You shall not hand over to his master a slave" The central interpretive question is the nationality of a slave and of his master. To whom does this exactly refer? This must refer to a foreign slave or a foreign slave-master (or both). This does clearly show Israel's understanding that a slave is more than an animated tool. YHWH allows servitude under certain restrictions and limits, but He also cares for the powerless, helpless, and vulnerable!
23:16 Notice the repeated freedoms YHWH demands for the escaped foreign slave:
1. "live in your midst" - BDB 442, KB 444
2. "the place which he shall choose" - BDB 103, KB 119, Qal IMPERFECT
Verses 15-25 Orders are here given about five several things which have no relation one to another:—I. The land of Israel is here made a sanctuary, or city of refuge, for servants that were wronged and abused by their masters, and fled thither for shelter from the neighbouring countries, v. 15, v. 16. We cannot suppose that they were hereby obliged to give entertainment to all the unprincipled men that ran from service; Israel needed not (as Rome at first did) to be thus peopled. But, 1. They must not deliver up the trembling servant to his enraged master, till upon trial it appeared that the servant has wronged his master and was justly liable to punishment. Note, It is an honourable thing to shelter and protect the weak, provided they be not wicked. God allows his people to patronise the oppressed. The angel bid Hagar return to her mistress, and Paul sent Onesimus back to his master Philemon, because they had neither of them any cause to go away, nor was either of them exposed to any danger in returning. But the servant here is supposed to escape, that is, to run for his life, to the people of Israel, of whom he had heard (as Benhadad of the kings of Israel, 1 Ki. 20:31 ) that they were a merciful people, to save himself from the fury of a tyrant; and in that case to deliver him up is to throw a lamb into the mouth of a lion.
15, 16. Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped from his master unto thee—evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people, who was driven by tyrannical oppression, or induced, with a view of embracing the true religion, to take refuge in Israel.
[15] Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
The servant — Of such as belonged to the Canaanites, or other neighbouring nations, because if he had lived in remote countries, it is not probable that he would flee so far to avoid his master, or that his master would follow him so far to recover him. For the Canaanites this sentence was most just, because both they and theirs were all forfeited to God and Israel, and whatsoever they enjoyed was by special indulgence. And for the other neighbours it may seem just also, because both masters and servants of these and other nations are unquestionably at the disposal of the Lord their maker and sovereign ruler. Understand it likewise of such as upon enquiry appear to have been unjustly oppressed by their masters. Now it is not strange if the great God, who hates all tyranny, and styles himself the refuge of the oppressed doth interpose his authority to rescue such persons from their cruel masters.
(Deuteronomy 23:15-16) Israel to provide asylum for the foreign escaped slave.
You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him.
a. You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you: “The refugee slave referred to had evidently come from a foreign land. Otherwise there would have been legal complications, since slaves were a valued possession.” (Thompson)
Not one of these commentaries is written by an atheist seeking to discredit the Bible. They are all written by faithful believers who have a vested interest in promoting the notion that Yahweh did not allow Israelites to return ANY slave. That they interpret the verse in a manner less favorable to their bias is evidence that their conclusions have integrity. A biased person upholds his bias: he doesn't hand ammo to the other side. These verses don't refer to Hebrews who "quit" being slaves.
The use of the term “within thy gates” in v. 16 is the tipoff that we're talking about foreigners, as stated or implied in all the commentaries.
Some Bible translations incorporate this understanding into the very text:
15 When runaway slaves from other countries come to Israel and ask for protection, you must not hand them back to their owners. 16 Instead, you must let them choose which one of your towns they want to live in. Don’t be cruel to runaway slaves. (CEV)
So the notion that a Hebrew slave could just walk off the job without consequence is without scriptural support. The Bible gives instruction not to return foreign slaves to their masters. It makes no such allowance for Hebrew slaves to run away without consequence.
You are correct, they could become an ebed either of those ways.. Let's start with the latter mentioned. Selling of a child as an ebed. The only way this would happen was already mentioned, that is the family is too poor to take care of themselves and it falls on the people to take care of them. If they still are unable to take care of themselves, then rather than allowing their children to die, they can sell them to another family in which case they were to be taken care of the same as an Iraelite servant where they were not to be given hard work as a normal servant. It would be very much like a temporary foster family. Except that is in one case. And that was rather than JUST trying to keep their kids alive, it was seen better that they could give their daughter to marry into a wealthy family that she would be family with priviledges rather than a servant, then they did that, but then, they weren't an ebed. And no, I wouldn't consider either of those scenarios a moral outrage. Sure, involuntary for the kids, but go ahead, let them die.. That sounds moral! They weren't allowed to sell them if they could afford to care for them, and they weren't treated as an ebed. Heck even an ebed isn't treated like what most think of as a slave either..
As for the other mention. Being born into it. Of course this would only be for the foreign servants with one slight exception and that is one of the verses you had brought up much earlier, but I won't handle just yet. Instead lets handle the foreign servant, and yes, their offspring. Being part of the ebed's family of course helped their family and went whereever their family lived and helped out. As mentioned earlier, every member of every family worked, and that was because it was needed just to survive in the agrarian culture they lived in. So yes, the sons and daughters worked with their parents. BUt as mentioned before, if they decided to leave the family they worked for, even though being from a foreign land, had the freedom to leave just as any Israel ebed and the Israelites were not permitted to force them to return.
I'm curious as to which "protections" you are referring to, Raf, that the foreign born ebed did not have available?
I get that you are arguing about how things were, but I think the more important thing to address was WHY. Why were these particular social constructs put into place? Who, exactly, is responsible for the whole idea that selling kids is ok, and why do you think there was EVER a benefit to the individual being used in this way? To me, it would make more sense for the parent to sell himself rather than make a child have to deal with a situation that he/she had no part in creating. How about only having the number of kids you can feed, clothe, and house? Even back in the day.
If this is such a moral and godly way to live one's life, then why in the hell aren't we doing it now?
I don't want to go all anti-TWI on people, but this whole having to resort to looking through commentaries to get the deeper or perhaps the more correct meaning is (IMO) ridiculous. The Bible is written by believers for believers. There is no hidden "truth" that somehow explains the higher moral/greater good aspect of these social constructs. It can be assumed, because they come from "God" and the premise is that all that comes from "God" is "good", that doing all these things to one another is morally good in the sight of God. That means that slavery, stoning for offenses, and all this stuff was a natural, everyday this-is-how-it-is sort of thing.
People obviously do not believe this now. The bigger question is WHY? Why was one more holy then who stoned their kids to death over mouthing off to a parent? And why is it not the case now? What changed? It wasn't God.
You do get that Jesus, had Mary's family actually followed the law, should have never been born!
I resorted to commentaries for three reasons. First, to show I had not made it up. Second, to show that there is a sound biblical basis for the conclusion. And third, to show that the same conclusion had been reached by scholars who would presumably be biased AGAINST my opinion, lending weight to the integrity of THEIR conclusions. It's easy to call someone unbiased when he agrees with you. But when he DOESN'T agree with you and STILL admits you're right about something, that demonstrates he has overcome his own bias in favor of the truth. That's valuable.
The verses about escaped slaves don't support the contentions TnO claims they support. There are no verses to support such contentions.
Make no mistake, being a servant was work. But there was a reason they were one. They were not allowed to be mistreated, else they could go free. (Ex 21:26ff) Course, if they were mistreated, they could run away also. The main reason one has to remember that they were a servant, were either because they were to poor to take care of themselves and couldn't find anyone able to do so, or they were a thief and needed to pay back their debt.
There are several questions I have. How much debt did one need to accrue before one had to pay through being a servant/slave? Since a thief had to pay back several times the value of the theft (apparently God can demand above and beyond restitution), then how did that apply to standard debt? What was the threshold on treatment when it then became mistreatment? Finally, if these standards were applied today would this result in a more moral society?
In the New American Standard Bible, it is translated female 15 times, female servant (4), female slave (2), handmaid (2), handmaids (1), maid (8), maids (5), maidservant (19), servant (1), servants (6), slave (4), slaves (4).
In the King James, it's maid, maidservant, bondmaid etc. It's never associated with the bride price. It is distinct from it. The master in Exodus 21 could marry her not because he had paid the bride price, but because he owned her.
There are several questions I have. How much debt did one need to accrue before one had to pay through being a servant/slave? Since a thief had to pay back several times the value of the theft (apparently God can demand above and beyond restitution), then how did that apply to standard debt? What was the threshold on treatment when it then became mistreatment? Finally, if these standards were applied today would this result in a more moral society?
Hello Tzaia. Here is biblical information for your good questions.
DEBT
Borrowed money or property which a person is bound by law to pay back to another. In all periods of history, people have always had to borrow money. In Bible times many were willing to lend the desired money, but at a price. Excessive interest rates of 50 percent or higher per year were often charged.
When a financial need arose, the needy could borrow from relatives or professional lenders, but they had to pay interest for the privilege of the loan. In spite of this custom, Moses admonished the Israelites to give help to their own people without charging any interest (Ex 22:25; Lev 25:35-38; Deut 23:19-20). However, they were allowed to charge interest to foreigners (Deut 15:3,6; 23:20). Apparently Moses' regulations either were not followed or fell into disuse (Neh 5:6-13). The prophet Ezekiel condemned the Israelites for charging interest, or usury, to their fellow citizens (Ezek 18:1-18; 22:12).
When a loan was made, something was usually put up for collateral (pledge or security) to guarantee that the debtor would pay his debt (Gen 38:17-20; Deut 24:10). But the creditor did not have the right forcefully to enter the debtor's house and claim the collateral. He was required to wait outside until the debtor brought out the pledge and presented it to him before witnesses (Deut 24:10-11). Essential objects that were necessary to sustain life, such as the MILLSTONE, could not be taken as a pledge (Deut 24:6).
A person's outer cloak, which was essential for warmth to the poor during the cold nights, could not be kept as a pledge overnight (Ex 22:26; Amos 2:8). Thus the Mosaic law sought to preserve the worth and dignity of both the family and the individual debtor.
Occasionally a debtor would give his child or slave as the pledge for a debt (2 Kings 4:1; Neh 5:1-5). Sometimes a family member or a friend would guarantee the pledge for another (Prov 6:1-5; 17:18).
The Mosaic law also provided for the SABBATICAL YEAR every seventh year (Deut 15:1) and the Year of JUBILEE every 50th year (Lev 25:8-55). These were times of release when debts were to be forgiven and all pledges returned.
Although Christ did not condemn investments to earn money (Matt 25:27; Luke 19:23), he emphasized the need for every person to show love and grace toward his fellow human beings (Matt 5:25-26; Luke 12:58-59). He taught us to pray, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matt 6:12). God has offered His grace in the form of his Son to pay the price for our debts (Heb 7:22). Out of gratitude, we should show that love to others (Luke 7:36-50).
Also here are scriptures relating to what needed to be paid back by the thief to the person he or she stole from. Regarding debt the above clearly shows that the people of Israel and perhaps also people of other nations often charged high interest rates on money borrowed. However, the Old Testament law was against charging interest of any kind as this relates to people of the nation of Israel charging interest to other people of the same nation. Regarding paying back debt when thievery was not involved I am sure that it was only required to pay back the exact amount. However, with high interest on loans this needed pay back can then literally multiply. God's biblical spokesmen were against the charging of interest on loans. And the year of Jubilee as part of the Old Testament law states that all debts were to be forgiven every 50th year. Again the only question is was this law actually applied by the people?
Exodus 22:1
1 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.
NKJV
Exodus 22:7-9
7 "If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man's house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. 8 If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor's goods. 9 "For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.
You don't employ an oxen or a draft horse in the same sense as you employ a human, you own it. What we're talking about here is, in essence, the concept of conscription (forced labor), putting humans in the same realm as work animals not negotiated contract employment (ebeddery). According to scripture, Yahweh approved of conscription. Please refer to the following scriptures for an expanded understanding of Biblical conscription: 1 Kings 9:21, Judges 1:28, Judges 1:35, 2 Chronicles 8:8.
Do you or do you not approve of conscripted labor?
As mentioned before, even in English, the word "own" has quite a broad range of meaning. It doesn't hae to refer to having exclusive right of property/things, it can be used of just having limited rights over someone or something. To ignore that would be disingenuous.
As for conscription, do I approve of it.. As a blanket statement, black and white, is not available. Everything has a context, and purpose, a reason. So while there are times I would not agree with conscription, there would be times when I have no issues with it. You live under the laws of the land, and the freedom a nation offers. And just as taxes are needed to keep that running, to ignore any and other needs would be foolhardy.
Not to defend promiscuity, but do you believe a woman who is not a virgin when she gets married should be stoned to death? Yahweh does. Please tell me you are more moral than Yahweh.
Unfortunately, you misrepresent what the torah actually says. Anyone looking to understand it negatively, will do so. That's your privilege and takes no thought. But it wasn't written to just take one mitzvah out of the whole and there you go, it says stone a woman, it's black and white! Anymore than I can take the warning on a DVD about 5 years max imprisonment for copying it. If it was a done deal that a non-virgin was stoned to death when she got married, or heck, even just the one about being caught in adultery, then Jesus would have had no ground to stand on when presented with the situation. Because you wish to view it as black and white, is fine. But then, that's not how it was to be understood then or now. As I stated at the beginning that to take the requirement of love out of it, it fails. And you have done just that. I'm not saying, oh, we should stone in love. That's being disingenuous about what I said, cause that is not what I am saying.
So the notion that a Hebrew slave could just walk off the job without consequence is without scriptural support. The Bible gives instruction not to return foreign slaves to their masters. It makes no such allowance for Hebrew slaves to run away without consequence.
It doesn't even anticipate the scenario.
You are free to your opinion. But the verse never mentioned foreign or otherwise. To read into that one or the other, is just trying to find fault. If it can be understood in positive light, you ignore it. That is being a bit dishonest in trying to determine morality, IMHO. If you were honestly trying to find where it was immoral, you would seek out where it says things that could not be taken in a positive light. Then you have a leg to stand on.
I get that you are arguing about how things were, but I think the more important thing to address was WHY. Why were these particular social constructs put into place? Who, exactly, is responsible for the whole idea that selling kids is ok, and why do you think there was EVER a benefit to the individual being used in this way? To me, it would make more sense for the parent to sell himself rather than make a child have to deal with a situation that he/she had no part in creating. How about only having the number of kids you can feed, clothe, and house? Even back in the day.
If this is such a moral and godly way to live one's life, then why in the hell aren't we doing it now?
You act like it isn't being done now. Maybe you didn't grow up in a farming community here in America, but there are times even today when a family is either being kicked off their land, or being broken up by divorce, or whatever, and they work with their neighbors and hand their kids over to different ones they trust and their kids work on their neighbors farm until they can care for the,. That's giving your child over as an ebed and is the same type of scenario as it was then and yes, it is still done today. Again, people keep thinking an ebed is some sort of ungodly slavery, when that WAS against the torah.
This is pointless. Yahweh actually imposes a law saying stone a woman to death if she's not a virgin when she's married, and your defense is "it doesn't mean it," effectively. Well, carp, if we get to just dismiss inconvenient verses with a wave of the hand...
You are free to your opinion. But the verse never mentioned foreign or otherwise. To read into that one or the other, is just trying to find fault. If it can be understood in positive light, you ignore it. That is being a bit dishonest in trying to determine morality, IMHO. If you were honestly trying to find where it was immoral, you would seek out where it says things that could not be taken in a positive light. Then you have a leg to stand on.
Funny how scholars who study the language, culture and scripture agree with my position and not yours. More false accusations about how I approach this and other debates. "If it can be taken in a positive light you ignore it." Bulls hit. You want to talk about a dishonest approach? Look at the lengths you go to in order to defend blatantly immoral laws. You would never do that if we were debating the Quran. Dishonest? How about failing to refute Yahweh's vicious prescribed punishments by citing platitudes like "God is love," and then having the GALL to accuse me of employing a straw man argument when I predicted that was precisely what you would do? THAT'S dishonest, if you must know.
You read instructions on selling your daughter into slavery, insist despite total lack of evidence that it's talking about the bride-price despite the absence of that term and the presence of the term for female slave, inject STDS into the discussion in a bid to create a false dilemma to distract from the fact that Yahweh is treating this woman with a level of disrespect no moral person would dare accept, and I'M the one reading into scripture? Because I actually did what you asked and looked into additional scholarship that shed light on the culture?
It's not an opinion. It's a fact: the verses about escaped slaves are not talking about Hebrew slaves. They're discussing foreigners. There is no provision for Hebrew slaves to escape. They are property, not some sanitized form of unionized employee. The Bible never speaks of hired workers as being owned property. Yahweh lets masters beat slaves as long as they don't maim or kill them. He holds wives and children hostage unless a freed slave agrees to return to slavery FOR LIFE. And I'm the one who's not handling our subject honestly? Bulls hit.
You act like it isn't being done now. Maybe you didn't grow up in a farming community here in America, but there are times even today when a family is either being kicked off their land, or being broken up by divorce, or whatever, and they work with their neighbors and hand their kids over to different ones they trust and their kids work on their neighbors farm until they can care for the,. That's giving your child over as an ebed and is the same type of scenario as it was then and yes, it is still done today. Again, people keep thinking an ebed is some sort of ungodly slavery, when that WAS against the torah.
Uh... no. Just, no. Wow, what a warped sense of cultural relativism to compare slavery with... oh never mind. I'm done. If anyone thinks you're even making valid points, much less proving them, I simply don't have respect for the quality of the argument.
Maybe if we all just spoke in tongues a little more and got our believing up, the eyes of our spiritual understanding would be opened. I'm just sayin'.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Raf
You are entitled to your opinion, but when you are unable to see the difference between being employed and being owned, you have seriously waved the white flag.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'd love to see my employer keep me from my wife and kids until I sign a contract vowing to be a lifetime employee.
I see nothing honest about equating employment with being owned. Rather, I see a desperate effort to deny that this ghastly practice was approved by Yahweh. I know people who've practiced yoga for a decade who cannot do a better job of bending over backwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I'm not sure if I have enough time, but let's try and handle this verse with what time I have left..
First, of course we are not talking about slavery. And while I realize you are trying to read a negative in the "does not go out similar to the men", it actually is the opposite. In other words, men have less rights. She has more and should not be treated as the men. She has more because of the custom with women. She still has the right to leave. However, the second sentence really details what we are talking about. And that is she was "sold" as a handmaid to be a wife.
It's important to note that it was actually rare for a man to marry anyone and NOT have paid for her. In fact any parents who did not sell their daughter for marriage(they all were considered a handmaid and an ebed, that was a normal term used) their parents would have been seen as dishonoring their daughter, their kin, and didn't care. Different than today were parents allow their child to go run free, have sex, marry whomever, and it's all good, let's not even mention the morality of the viruses these kids today pass on in their freedom. Yes, they were mostly all arranged marriages back then. And the marriage contract, which is what is mentioned in the second verse, was a commitment for life. I'm not sure how much exposure people have now days with arranged marriages, they are very common among Easterners, and I have quite a few friends who either are in arranged marriages or got out. And it's usually the guys who want out, even when they show me these great pictures of their arranged bride, I'm wondering they they would leave that for what we have in America. Lust gone wild. Irregardless of today, looking at the culture of then. In a family with sons and daughters, it was the way of life for the sons to marry(for a price) and bring their bride and build a place on their parents property and help their family. The daughter on the other hand, helped the parents, until it was time for her to be given in marriage for a price, that price represented the fact that she wouldn't be helping the family any more. Again, all life was centered around the family. And the loss of help was offset somewhat by the price the husband to be would pay. Remember Jacob working for many years to pay off Rachel's parents. Arranged marriages then and now wasn't done behind the daughters back as you seem to suggest or without her consent. The bride to be could just run off or refuse. But usually the parents who would be considered mature adults would have made sure it was a good household. Without money, though, there was no marriage. And yes,it was viewed as her labor in helping her family being sold to now help her new family whom she, her parents, the husband to be, the local priest, rabbi, and a host of others that would be involved in ensuring it was a good choice.
Having said all that. What we find in this section of the torah though is some issues that could arrise in this contract and how to deal with them. The brides family sells her off. But she may be found "evil". That is, what her parents and herself represented her as being, didn't happen to be the case. She wasn't a virgin, etc.. And while some may think they put undue stress on that, you only have to look at today's sexually transmitted diseases to understand why they would want purity. But hey, maybe it's moral to have sex with multiple partners, never check each time or think the condom is good enough, and just find out later that you just infected a host of other parties. So if "evil" was found, she can be redeemed, bought back. Basically the money the man paid, is given back. The "husband" has no right to sell her to a foreign nation. But it's possible, having paid money for a bride, and receiving someone who didn't match the bill of goods sold that a good amount of people would have been involved in, and the family didn't want her back either, then he has a few choices of what to do with this gal. He could do as Joseph did and decide to keep Mary as his wife. The next sentence then talks about if the original marriage was to his son, and not him and that she would have all the rights as any other daughter-in-law. And the last sentence is referring to any married woman, that they are to always be granted 3 things, and if ever they are not granted, the woman is free to go. The bride payment can not be recovered.
Like I said, prove me wrong. I gave the definition of the word.. The burden is now on you! How is it impossible to ignore those definitions and say you are not owned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You don't employ an oxen or a draft horse in the same sense as you employ a human, you own it. What we're talking about here is, in essence, the concept of conscription (forced labor), putting humans in the same realm as work animals not negotiated contract employment (ebeddery). According to scripture, Yahweh approved of conscription. Please refer to the following scriptures for an expanded understanding of Biblical conscription: 1 Kings 9:21, Judges 1:28, Judges 1:35, 2 Chronicles 8:8.
Do you or do you not approve of conscripted labor?
edit: For the sake of clarity, let's leave the U.S. military draft out of the discussion. Agreed?
re-edit: sentence structure.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I stopped reading when he defended selling your daughter into slavery and claimed women have more rights than men. Maybe he is not more moral than Yahweh. But decent people are. I am honestly shocked.
Define owned. Please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
One more time: when my employer has the right to keep my wife and son from me unless I agree to be an employee for life and have an awl driven through my ear to prove it, MAYBE I'll concede our employers own us rather than merely purchase our work product.
This is no longer a serious conversation. Defending the selling of daughters and saying it's not slavery ... just WOW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Totally skipped the issue of polygamy. Totally misrepresented the sale of a slave as a bride price. Totally went full False Dilemma with selling a virgin being preferable to sleeping around with an STD infected whore. Totally ignored the (now completely relevant) fact that in the Torah, a woman who is not a virgin when she is married gets bleeping stoned to death . There are so many errors, fallacies and moral outrages in that one post that I think you have singlehandedly validated everything my thread title promises.
I shudder at the thought of you having a daughter if you think the verses we're discussing describe a moral way to treat her.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Regarding Exodus 21 supposedly NOT talking about slavery, please do a word study on the relevant verse, look at previous and later usages of the word, and say again with a straight face that it is talking about a regular "bride price" and not the selling of a slave. Note that her going free is not accompanied by a certificate of divorce. She just goes free.
Not to defend promiscuity, but do you believe a woman who is not a virgin when she gets married should be stoned to death? Yahweh does. Please tell me you are more moral than Yahweh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm sitting in a courtroom right now and I just heard a judge tell someone how much freedom they have in prison. You are clothed, fed and housed. They check up on you, make sure you're healthy, drug free. Lots of time to exercise. No overly burdensome work. Free!
Yeah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Selected commentaries on Deuteronomy 23: 15-16
SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.FREEBIBLECOMMENTARY.ORG/OLD_TESTAMENT_STUDIES/VOL03OT/VOL03OT_23.HTML
Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/deuteronomy/23.html
Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/deuteronomy/deuteronomy-23.html
Source: http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=wes&b=5&c=23
Source: http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/guz/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=023
Not one of these commentaries is written by an atheist seeking to discredit the Bible. They are all written by faithful believers who have a vested interest in promoting the notion that Yahweh did not allow Israelites to return ANY slave. That they interpret the verse in a manner less favorable to their bias is evidence that their conclusions have integrity. A biased person upholds his bias: he doesn't hand ammo to the other side. These verses don't refer to Hebrews who "quit" being slaves.
The use of the term “within thy gates” in v. 16 is the tipoff that we're talking about foreigners, as stated or implied in all the commentaries.
Some Bible translations incorporate this understanding into the very text:
So the notion that a Hebrew slave could just walk off the job without consequence is without scriptural support. The Bible gives instruction not to return foreign slaves to their masters. It makes no such allowance for Hebrew slaves to run away without consequence.
It doesn't even anticipate the scenario.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I get that you are arguing about how things were, but I think the more important thing to address was WHY. Why were these particular social constructs put into place? Who, exactly, is responsible for the whole idea that selling kids is ok, and why do you think there was EVER a benefit to the individual being used in this way? To me, it would make more sense for the parent to sell himself rather than make a child have to deal with a situation that he/she had no part in creating. How about only having the number of kids you can feed, clothe, and house? Even back in the day.
If this is such a moral and godly way to live one's life, then why in the hell aren't we doing it now?
Just asking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I don't want to go all anti-TWI on people, but this whole having to resort to looking through commentaries to get the deeper or perhaps the more correct meaning is (IMO) ridiculous. The Bible is written by believers for believers. There is no hidden "truth" that somehow explains the higher moral/greater good aspect of these social constructs. It can be assumed, because they come from "God" and the premise is that all that comes from "God" is "good", that doing all these things to one another is morally good in the sight of God. That means that slavery, stoning for offenses, and all this stuff was a natural, everyday this-is-how-it-is sort of thing.
People obviously do not believe this now. The bigger question is WHY? Why was one more holy then who stoned their kids to death over mouthing off to a parent? And why is it not the case now? What changed? It wasn't God.
You do get that Jesus, had Mary's family actually followed the law, should have never been born!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Because you are more moral than Yahweh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I resorted to commentaries for three reasons. First, to show I had not made it up. Second, to show that there is a sound biblical basis for the conclusion. And third, to show that the same conclusion had been reached by scholars who would presumably be biased AGAINST my opinion, lending weight to the integrity of THEIR conclusions. It's easy to call someone unbiased when he agrees with you. But when he DOESN'T agree with you and STILL admits you're right about something, that demonstrates he has overcome his own bias in favor of the truth. That's valuable.
The verses about escaped slaves don't support the contentions TnO claims they support. There are no verses to support such contentions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
There are several questions I have. How much debt did one need to accrue before one had to pay through being a servant/slave? Since a thief had to pay back several times the value of the theft (apparently God can demand above and beyond restitution), then how did that apply to standard debt? What was the threshold on treatment when it then became mistreatment? Finally, if these standards were applied today would this result in a more moral society?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The word translated "maidservant" in Exodus 21:7 is amah.
Here's a word study entry on it:
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0519.html
In the New American Standard Bible, it is translated female 15 times, female servant (4), female slave (2), handmaid (2), handmaids (1), maid (8), maids (5), maidservant (19), servant (1), servants (6), slave (4), slaves (4).
In the King James, it's maid, maidservant, bondmaid etc. It's never associated with the bride price. It is distinct from it. The master in Exodus 21 could marry her not because he had paid the bride price, but because he owned her.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hello Tzaia. Here is biblical information for your good questions.
Also here are scriptures relating to what needed to be paid back by the thief to the person he or she stole from. Regarding debt the above clearly shows that the people of Israel and perhaps also people of other nations often charged high interest rates on money borrowed. However, the Old Testament law was against charging interest of any kind as this relates to people of the nation of Israel charging interest to other people of the same nation. Regarding paying back debt when thievery was not involved I am sure that it was only required to pay back the exact amount. However, with high interest on loans this needed pay back can then literally multiply. God's biblical spokesmen were against the charging of interest on loans. And the year of Jubilee as part of the Old Testament law states that all debts were to be forgiven every 50th year. Again the only question is was this law actually applied by the people?
Exodus 22:1
1 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.
NKJV
Exodus 22:7-9
7 "If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man's house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. 8 If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor's goods. 9 "For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.
NKJV
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
As mentioned before, even in English, the word "own" has quite a broad range of meaning. It doesn't hae to refer to having exclusive right of property/things, it can be used of just having limited rights over someone or something. To ignore that would be disingenuous.
As for conscription, do I approve of it.. As a blanket statement, black and white, is not available. Everything has a context, and purpose, a reason. So while there are times I would not agree with conscription, there would be times when I have no issues with it. You live under the laws of the land, and the freedom a nation offers. And just as taxes are needed to keep that running, to ignore any and other needs would be foolhardy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Unfortunately, you misrepresent what the torah actually says. Anyone looking to understand it negatively, will do so. That's your privilege and takes no thought. But it wasn't written to just take one mitzvah out of the whole and there you go, it says stone a woman, it's black and white! Anymore than I can take the warning on a DVD about 5 years max imprisonment for copying it. If it was a done deal that a non-virgin was stoned to death when she got married, or heck, even just the one about being caught in adultery, then Jesus would have had no ground to stand on when presented with the situation. Because you wish to view it as black and white, is fine. But then, that's not how it was to be understood then or now. As I stated at the beginning that to take the requirement of love out of it, it fails. And you have done just that. I'm not saying, oh, we should stone in love. That's being disingenuous about what I said, cause that is not what I am saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
You are free to your opinion. But the verse never mentioned foreign or otherwise. To read into that one or the other, is just trying to find fault. If it can be understood in positive light, you ignore it. That is being a bit dishonest in trying to determine morality, IMHO. If you were honestly trying to find where it was immoral, you would seek out where it says things that could not be taken in a positive light. Then you have a leg to stand on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
You act like it isn't being done now. Maybe you didn't grow up in a farming community here in America, but there are times even today when a family is either being kicked off their land, or being broken up by divorce, or whatever, and they work with their neighbors and hand their kids over to different ones they trust and their kids work on their neighbors farm until they can care for the,. That's giving your child over as an ebed and is the same type of scenario as it was then and yes, it is still done today. Again, people keep thinking an ebed is some sort of ungodly slavery, when that WAS against the torah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This is pointless. Yahweh actually imposes a law saying stone a woman to death if she's not a virgin when she's married, and your defense is "it doesn't mean it," effectively. Well, carp, if we get to just dismiss inconvenient verses with a wave of the hand...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Funny how scholars who study the language, culture and scripture agree with my position and not yours. More false accusations about how I approach this and other debates. "If it can be taken in a positive light you ignore it." Bulls hit. You want to talk about a dishonest approach? Look at the lengths you go to in order to defend blatantly immoral laws. You would never do that if we were debating the Quran. Dishonest? How about failing to refute Yahweh's vicious prescribed punishments by citing platitudes like "God is love," and then having the GALL to accuse me of employing a straw man argument when I predicted that was precisely what you would do? THAT'S dishonest, if you must know.
You read instructions on selling your daughter into slavery, insist despite total lack of evidence that it's talking about the bride-price despite the absence of that term and the presence of the term for female slave, inject STDS into the discussion in a bid to create a false dilemma to distract from the fact that Yahweh is treating this woman with a level of disrespect no moral person would dare accept, and I'M the one reading into scripture? Because I actually did what you asked and looked into additional scholarship that shed light on the culture?
It's not an opinion. It's a fact: the verses about escaped slaves are not talking about Hebrew slaves. They're discussing foreigners. There is no provision for Hebrew slaves to escape. They are property, not some sanitized form of unionized employee. The Bible never speaks of hired workers as being owned property. Yahweh lets masters beat slaves as long as they don't maim or kill them. He holds wives and children hostage unless a freed slave agrees to return to slavery FOR LIFE. And I'm the one who's not handling our subject honestly? Bulls hit.
Uh... no. Just, no. Wow, what a warped sense of cultural relativism to compare slavery with... oh never mind. I'm done. If anyone thinks you're even making valid points, much less proving them, I simply don't have respect for the quality of the argument.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe if we all just spoke in tongues a little more and got our believing up, the eyes of our spiritual understanding would be opened. I'm just sayin'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.