Thanks for sharing your knowledge & time, Josh. It's always an edifying experience. I feel that I can safely speak for many of us when I say that you're very well-liked here, and we're always happy to hear your voice.
Great as always Dr. Josh. I listen to every interview you do on this and read your books too. Even probably annoy you with the occasional question in email if you recall. I heard you make the point recently in another interview about the fact that most (if not all?) nations at the time had the law against kidnapping free people and making them slaves. Just like the Bible. So if the Bible had that law and it means slavery is outlawed (as many apologists claim), then there was no slavery in those nations either. Not a point I ever made specifically, but one I'm going to use for years now. As well as the Greek "ανδραποδιστης" in 1 Timothy 1:10 referring to stealing free people and making them slaves. The same reason that slave traders are condemned in the Bible (and widely in the ANE right?). Just such misused and misapplied passages. I still learn things from you Dr. Josh. Even after all these years.
This omnipotent God could have just put an insert in the OT saying: "Listen people. I've changed. No more mass murder, slavery and rape, on my behalf or otherwise. I'm all into peace and love now. But you must keep worshipping me, or otherwise you're still going to hell. I'll call on you later to check if your original sin can be cancelled. Seeya!" The whole NT would have been redundant.
@@taylorlibby7642 Be nice. Some of these ideas are new to people and they're testing them out. Besides, the word you were looking to use is.... Inerrant. Which is a very cool word, but I don't think a single book qualifies for it.
Genetically modified skeptic is also a decent one to look at. I'd also recommend a now discontinued podcast, the How to Heretic. Really great, and a great guide for how to organize your life now that you aren't constrained by the chains of religion.
Good luck on your journey, Beverley. I am encouraged by how it seems that the more critical and informed the thinking about Biblical texts the more it is possible to distinguish what is truly worth retaining.
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.
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.
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.
@@unduloid Yep. Some of these apologetics are from before christianity even existed. There really is no cream of that crop. They've been curdled for centuries.
You got to scratch underneat their balls and they'll hug you. Too bad that they'll also expect to french you, the eels i mean, they wont leave you alone afterwards so dont try it
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
Oh, the Bible actually allows you to beat your slave to death. As long as they linger for a day or two before dying. Apparently if they don’t die on the day of the beating, their death is ‘accidental’. Exodus 21:20-21, “If a person beats his male or female slave with a stick so severely that he dies, he is to be punished; except that if the slave lives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his property.” www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A20-21&version=CJB
What you're describing is exactly the point of biblical slavery. No one wants their family members to be slaves and so their family members will work hard in order to redeem them. That's the point, force your family members to pay. And then there's the question of how they came to be your slave. You can't just call dibs. You lent someone money, or captured him on the battlefield. If you lent him money, surely you deserve your money and his family should have helped avoid the slavery in the firstplace but even after the fact you deserve your money. As for the battlefield id much rather my family member be your slave until i can redeem him than the alternative. An interesting side notes Slave auctions were the ancient equivalent of JG Wentworth, sell your slave and his associated debt at a discount to get guaranteed money today.
@@PatrickPeaseand... ? No moral human being should be ok with that. Also, onec again it should be reiterated that debt slavery or indentured servitude was ONLY for fellow Israelites, whom you could then force to become your permanent, lifelong PROPERTY by holding their wives and children hostage.
@@asagoldsmith3328 slaves have cash value and could be redeemed by anyone with enough money to redeem them. Also, slaves were given frequent opportunities to become israelites and israelites were not allowed to keep slaves that would not convert. It's in their laws, look it up.
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.
"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.
That verse is that everyone is equally under god, as in everyone is a slave to god. For some reason many apologists want to twist that into "therefore everyone is equal among themselves" despite the bible literally saying there are some humans above anothers like "you shall have slaves from the heathens around you" or "the man is the head of the house, like jesus is the head of the church".
@LadyDoomsinger slavery was never abolished or outlawed in the US. The 13th amendment allows for prisoners to be used as slaves. Which explains why the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Even the USA thing says " All men are created equal, it is the 2nd part of that statement that is hidden, But some are more equal than others. Obviously women are lesser beings if you believe any of this.
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.
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.
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.
I find it especially interesting as his storybook has the jesus character explicitly stating the polar opposite. "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17 RSV)"
@@nagranoth_ you say that like it's ridiculous but that's actually how Christianity works. When Jesus says a thing and Paul twists it to mean something opposite, Paul is the one churches go with.
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)
Don't you know you're only supposed to bring up verses from different parts of the buy-bull in the same conversation when they can be teisted to support each other?
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.
"Mistreat" can be a relative term. If it's typical to beat your slave 10 times a day, then only 7 beatings would be better treatment, and 13 might be mistreatment.
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 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.
Does everyone know right from wrong? I don’t think so. My favorite example is: is it wrong to eat meat? Many people say eating meat is wrong and many others have no problem with it. There really should be an answer to this ethical question that “everyone knows.” But there’s not, because morals are for the most part taught to us. Although I will grant some morals can be biological in nature, like not harming someone out of empathy, but those “morals” can also be drummed out of us or there’d be no soldiers to fight wars. For Kent to say everyone knows right from wrong is inherently (heh-heh) wrong.
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 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.
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.
❤THANK YOU to Dr. Bowen for knowing that the singular form of "criteria" is "criterion." Hardly anybody on RU-vid seems to understand that, or "phenomenon" and "phenomena."
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.
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!
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?
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'.
TJ Jackson was not divine but a fallible man of his own time and place. As I think the same of Jesus of Nazareth I think the latter a remarkable man. However for a divine being, supposed to be the embodiment of perfect love and the unmovable founder of objective, infallible hence unchangable morals I think Jesus quite a disappointment.
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.
you can read a random verse to a bunch of Xtians. Tell them it's from the Quran and they condemn the verse, tell them it's from the bible and they condone it.
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....
@@Kenneth-ts7bp _Doctor is a relative term_ He has a PhD from an accredited university. Unlike a lot of these theist apologist who claim a PhD from prager U _Doctor of Lies isn't a credible field_ Throwing out ad hominems isn't an argument nor does it refute a single piece of Dr. Josh's work.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp Nope...just shows you have no argument. More telling of your inability to counter any of his points. Kinda sad if you think about it...
@@thedude0000 I recognize a lie when I hear it. I have refuted all of Josh's and Matt's lies. I have been teaching atheists on AXP for several years, but they are slow learners.
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.
@@autonomouscollective2599It’s like the 4th century Christians who canonized the Bible were like, “Hey, let’s collect all these spuriously authored documents and make an entire book out of them!”
Then giving people a death sentence for crimes against humanity is good. Holding criminal cultures accountable for their crimes against humanity is good.
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.
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?
Oh that's an easy one. The Egyptian slavery was bad because it wasn't as "good" as Yahweh's slavery + Yahweh's special chosen people weren't the majority slave owners.
That was not "biblical slavery" but Egyptian slavery which was cruel. Why do atheists have such hissy fits with slavery when atheism doesn't condemn slavery as evil?
@@Praha175 Atheism is a knowledge claim about reality that asserts that no God exist. This implies there is no such thing as evil. Slavery is not evil.
That's child abuse. I think I will notify Child Protective Services. You really didn't make sense though. When your child grows up, they will have probably outgrown your ignorant position of atheism.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp _["That's child abuse."]_ No, child abuse is indoctrinating a child into a ideology that tells him he is worthless garbage deserving to be tortured infinitely. It is child abuse to teach a child to reject logic and reason in favor of some fantasy.
@_Omega_Weapon God: Highest authority. God has saved hundreds of millions. God has been communicating with mankind for 6000 years. All of history speaks of a Creator. There is a God. Nothing about the cosmos indicates it is a natural occurrence. The foundations are supernatural and supernatural events have been occurring since God made it. Everything that doesn't occur naturally is supernatural. There are millions of supernatural events all over the world. We hear about them regularly. You are in denial regularly. I have personally experienced Jesus Christ. I know he is God.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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?
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.
I read the first book in detail (lots of margin notes). I think the second book provides a broader picture of the Ancient Near East and how the Israelites practice of slavery was in lock step with other nations. Additionally, he seems to add a ton of additional references for the reader.
@@thedude0000 I'm only wondering why he did not do that originally. Did he write the book, publish it, and then think to himself, "damnit, I forgot to list two-thirds of the information I had. Oh well, silly me. I guess it's time to write a new edition."
@@sussekind9717 Well, this is just me speculating, so take it with a grain of salt. I honest think Dr. Josh believed it was just so obvious that the Old Testament supported slavery. He wrote a brief book just outlining the verses and he most likely figured that would suffice. However, since writing the last book, he's seen the apologist response and decided to write a more comprehensive book. That's my honest opinion.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp You certainly make a compelling case for your statement. I now understand what beliefs you were talking about and how they require mental gymnastics to be maintained. Thank you for your valuable contributions!
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
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.
@@Justas399 Atheism is the answer to one question: Is there sufficient (any) evidence for the existence of god(s)? It doesn't claim to be a complete moral code, much less one based on a probable lie. However, humanists would clearly condemn such practices.
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.
"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?
Well the problem we got is Hebrew words cant be directly translated resulting in the translators having to decide if the Hebrew is actually slave or servant So we need to double check which of slave, servant or both works and which make most sense.
@@mattm8870 I suppose my point is, that whether or not there are actually two different words, the people who translated the Bible practically uniformly decided that the word to use in the passages and question was" slave" and not " servant". Presumably there was a good reason for making that distinction
@@mattm8870 and I decided to go ahead and just look it up: מְשָׁרֵת servant, servitor, manservant, footman, attendant, official עֶבֶד slave, servant, bondsman, serf, servitor, thrall שַׁמָשׁ attendant, servant, caretaker, beadle, orderly, janitor So it appears they did have clearly different words for each of these Concepts, though perhaps with some slight overlap- in which case I suppose it's the contacts which makes it clear what was meant
Bondservant is the 17th century polite word for a slave. So that’s how the Hebrew word for slave is often interpreted into English in the King James translation. Literally a servant in bondage, as opposed to a servant for hire.
2 Kings 4:1 ? Really? Read on and the story showed the prophet of God intervening to rescue the family a few verses later. The Bible does not endorse everything behaviour it describes. Distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive. Let's take all the verses in their literary and historical and local context. Find an actual endorsement of slavery as aligned with God's vision for humanity.
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! 🥊
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"?
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.
That’s a fair and good question. Since it is technically a popular-level book that brings together consensus scholarship on the topic while not really arguing anything novel, peer review wouldn’t really be appropriate. But please know that we take this topic (along with the others that we present consensus scholarship on) very seriously and work to represent subject-matter experts fairly and evenly on these issues. Hope that helps! ☺️🙌
I don't understand what the debate is here (not this YT video, the one they are covering). You should never have a right to own another person. Period. End of discussion. It doesn't matter what your book, "god", skin color, or daddy says. You can't own another human being. It shouldn't be that complicated.
@@marknieuweboer8099 okay, that's what I thought. Thank you for confirming. The retort I would give that guy is simple though, it's irrelevant how good the slaves are treated. The very existence of it is the problem.
Dumb question - have you subscribed, and have you enabled notifications? I ask only because I don’t want anyone to miss any of this content. If you have done these things, please disregard this humble attempt to help.
Frank's interpretation of Galatians 3:28 not only leads to the abolition of gender as Bowen correctly states, but religion as well. Does Frank believe there is no such thing as Christian and Jew, just brothers in Christ?
My understanding was the Greek referred to non Jews and that the group that would become Christians were counting themselves in the Jew section of that
In attempting to retrofit into many separate ancient texts the modern Western concept of slavery that is somewhat inseparable from concepts such as race and captivity, Bart Erhman's guest omits philological proofs showing where they are the same. The Hebrew word the guest cites as meaning 'slave' is "ebed". The word ebed appears in names like Abdullah, or Abdullah, or ' Slave ( abd \ ebd) of (u) Allah (llah)'. The Aramaic etymon a-b-d also signifies " darkness", particularly desribing skin tone. One instance that this twofold meaning of slavery with having a more colorful skintone is when Muhammed was shunned by his family tribe the Koresh for arranging a marriage between a darker skin Ethiopian or Nagast slave to his cousin. Undoutedly this wicked tradition stretches back in time as it is attested to when Jerimiah singly compares the Ethiopian skin to spots on a leopard: "can the Ethiopian change his skin? The leopard its spots?". The slight also appears in the fable of Aesop titled jointly either The Dirty Indian or Washing The Ethiopian White. This terrible singling out is also referenced in the Pali Buddhist Ambattha sutta. It is interesting to notice that the the Arabic word a-b-d, 'dark' or 'black', synonymous with eswat, is likely cognate Arabic 'abyad', or ' abyud', " white", simarly to how our words 'black' and 'bleach' derive from 'bherg', or " blaze". Bart's guest admits that " a king can be a slave" (12:17) and Bart takes the edges off this by suggesting that calling a king "slave", which here is conflated with eded, " might be used metaphorically maybe?". The guest simply revises his previous statement by responding "yes". We hear next that slavery, presumably referencing the word, 'ebed', was applied to that widespread tradition of bride dowry that Bart detestingly remarks on by squeamishly saying " really? you can sell your daughter,.... this sounds like it is sex slavery" (30:29). At times Bart's guest uses the phrase " male debt slave" (31:06) interchanably with "male slaves" (31:16). Pointing this out may be splittimg hairs but interchanging terms can be misleading. Bart and, if im not mistaken, his guest, both believe that The Bible is a compilation of many separate works. However, Bart seems to support that it is a work of single intent when making the blanket statement " The bible doesnt condemn slavery" (44:49). Perhaps not the entire bible compilation but in Matt 20:25, the figure of Jesus contrasts voluntary servitude with slavery when he says “You know that the rulers {archons} of the Gentiles lord it {authority} over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant {διάκονος, diakonos} And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave {δοῦλος· doulos}. Citizens, or subjects, of the United States can see that the above phrase "lord it {authority} over them" is exactly how we define "slavery" and,, although running contrary to Jefferson's D.O.I. line that governmemts " derive their just authority from the consent of the governed", parallels the the 14th ammemdmemt phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It is also interesting to note how accurately the etymology of the place name America describes the slavitude of the United States of America, or Work {amal} Ruler (rika eich: cognate archons).
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.
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
