Does the Bible Condone Slavery? w/ Dr. John Bergsma 

"Many in our culture tend to conceptualize the ancient world as full of plantation owner's that treat their slaves like dirt because of their race. Thank you for helping to illustrate the truth!"...I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make is. If you treat a slave great instead of like "dirt", then is slavery morally acceptable in your opinion? If slavery is based on poverty instead of race does that make slavery morally acceptable? Since you seem to be defending slavery for some reason, I guess the best question to ask is...Do you personally believe it is EVER morally acceptable to be allowed to purchase another person and consider them property that can be passed on to your children as an inheritance?

@@GuessWhoAsks Friend, you are really putting words in my mouth and assuming a lot about my statement. When did I condone slavery in what I said? I'm simply pointing out that some tend to see the ancient world through a modern lens. All people have inherent dignity and value absolutely. I hold to everything Dr. Bergsma argues in this video.

@GuessWhoAsks yes, slavery can be morally acceptable. God is certainly ok with it. However, what happened in America is absolutely no morally allowed. Exodus 21 says anyone who steals a person and anyone who buys that person should be put to death. Slavery is a much broader term than our modern western culture understands. The Bible affirms, from the very first chapter, that everyone is made in God's image. We can't treat people as mere property. God allows people to "own" each other, but with huge asterisks. They must be treated as people. There is an understanding that although you "own" them, really you are both owned by God and anything or anyone you have must be taken care of and stewarded well. This extends beyond slaves. What about your children? "You can't tell me how to raise my kids." No, but God can. And he does. Again, anything or anyone under your authority you must treat as taking care of what belongs to God rather than you. The Bible says you can't steal people, you must treat others as made in God's image, you can't be harsh with people, when your slave goes free you must send a ton of stuff with him so he's financially set for success. The Bible turns our world upside down and defies what our culture says. Culture used to say its all good and now says its never good, but the Bible says it's fine as long as you follow this long list of stuff that ensures you aren't taking advantage of them or treating them poorly. If American slave owners has to follow the Bible in regards to slaves they'd just throw up their hands and say "not worth it, y'all just leave." Those who follow Jesus are called his slaves, and yet it's the best deal ever.

So, you did not comprehend anything that was said in this video?@@GuessWhoAsks

@@GuessWhoAsks No so. And that is NOT the crux of the discussion in this video. Alas....

Why no question mark?

There's like 63 or 66 commandments, just keep reading.

@@rickandrygel913 Christians only recognize ten commandments

The 1st 3 can be thrown out with no impact on our understanding of morality. Certainly, prohibitions against rape, spousal/child abuse, and slavery should take their place. The world would have been a much better place.

Read the Scriptures in Context and see how honest you are? ITS SUPPORTS RAPE MOLESTATIONS IN 4 OTHER BOOKS AND YOUR HONESTY PREVENTS YOU FROM READING THOSE. Why you can only cherry pick a couple little verse to help your sanity . Not wasting my time any more because of the abuse from cultish behaviors and learning why Priest perverts molesters have 2 millions Dollars saved just to Protect them from Courts Indictment's. Our Tax Money keeps them out of prisons because such a loving God Condones in Many Books then Contradicts like in others Steeling the Honesty of its Humans is very Man of Empires of Inventions to indoctrinate the Masses . Romulus Bible before the Scriptures hidden but forced out to the public because of new laws!! Empire of Rome and their Book Bible Named Romulus !! 2 brothers floating down the river in a basket then, drinking the milk from a dirty Wolf Dog. The King James 1000 years LATER WITH, The Scriptures Mosses Floating down the river in a basket rings a Big Bell Shaking the Brain with Vibrations if Honest ? Jesus Building the Great lake of fire TO BURN YOU IN HELL FOR EVER AND EVER ETERNITY AFTER GOD FORGAVE US IS WHAT THE SCAM STARTED BEING NOTICED. from romans: to Corinthians: Contradictions Galore was just the icing on the cake.

What if you’re not in the lord?

Prior to that it is discussing of warfare between Israel and its *pagan neighbors. Those escaping slavery from *idol worshippers were seen as the rationale for not handing them back across enemy lines to be exposed to the fate of breaking of the command of God. (Just saying...)

B-U-T!!!!!!!!! NUMBERS: LEVITUCUS: DEUTERONOMY: GALATION: God Rewards you if you Sloter Mothers Solders Parents and the live Children? you can keep for reward and do with them as you choose in your own private areas. rape molestations for reward in Scriptures confused . READ IT IN CONTEXT AND WHY SO MANY WISE SMART INTELLIGENT HARVARD STUDENTS BECOME INSTENT ATHEIST AFTER READING A COUPLE TIMES IN CONTEXT. They pray by parents starting out with praise asking for the Guidance from thy Holy Spirit becoming instant ATHEIST AFTER READING FULL CONTEXT OF THE SCRIPTURES. ALSO ONLY PROFIT OVER RIDES THE ALGORITHMIC and not the honest Churches of God in Jesus who are indoctrinated just because they can't read or see the book in Context. have no power in many places. MONEY DOES!! AND GOD LOVES MONEY. PROVING the hundreds of thousand still today God lets them suffer dying horrible hell is all they get and reading in context you know is foolish to think itwould offer a true honest loving heaven when Jesus builds a great lake of fire AFTER he forgives you in ROMANS TO CORINTHIANS. TO NURN FOR EVER AND EVER IN ETERNITY IN HELL FIRE BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU.

FUNNY STRANGLY ? Numbers : say you can molest rape them for rewards after you killed the Solders and take their children and do as you choose with them in your own privacy because you have been rewarded. stinking ridiculous CONTRADICTIONS? Why a so many Harvard Students Reading a couple times in context seeking honestly from God Becoming instant Atheist after reading scriptures in context. Makes the gullible naive Stupid wake up a little.@@collegesuccess

please do not take the bible out of context to suit your selfish needs. that passage is referring to outsiders who were slaves from other lands. Not local slaves. please do not misrepresent the word

Leviticus 25:44 ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

He also didn't say why one would choose the surrender his freedom at the end of his temporary enslavement. If the master gave the man a wife during the enslavement and his term was done, the former slave would be forced to either abandon his wife and children or declare his lifelong enslavement to his master. This is beyond cruel.

@@Charlotte_Martel I would’ve liked a more thorough treatment of the topic, for sure.

Because they completely undermine his bullshit argument

@@Charlotte_Martel From the understanding I've sought with this verse. It seems to point to a parallel of time stamps between couples who were enslaved. Examples: If the woman had served less time then the man and the man completed his servitude, he cannot just leave with the wife but only until she has completed her time as well as long with her children due to children being with the mother. Hope this helps man

@@TrickyLoud I honestly don't know where you're getting this interpretation. Even WLC admits that the slave's wife and kids are the lifelong property of the owner if given during the slave's period of servitude. Why in the world would a newly freed man commit himself to lifelong enslavement if he knew that his wife would be freed in a short period? Your interpretation makes no sense.

Not close to perfect. Avoids the issue.

Right!! Read EXODUS 21: ? YOU CAN BUY AND OWN ALL THE PEOPLE OF ALL COUNTRIES AND NATIONS OF THE EARTH? YOU CAN BEAT THEM DAILY AS LONG AS THEY DON'T DIE IN 2 DAYS? AND GETS MORE GORY READING ON ABOUT OWNING THE CHILDREN IF THEY DIE AND DOING AS YOU CHOOSE WITH THEM IN YOUR OWN CONFORT. FOR A REWARD. RAPE.@@rickdockery9620

@@rickdockery9620 These people would probably burn witches and heretics if they were told they were doing good.

​@@rickdockery9620?

jubilee is invented by man? Just like the Trinity is Invented by Man . Firstly, no such words are in the Scriptures. Including (RAPTURE) Made up tales about Jesus plucking up people is not for our times but, was for the Immediate times of Jesus and His Disciples in 70AD only and not Today or the Future... Why all the Decades in the Past 70 years These So Called Holy 'PREDICAMENTS' ? Raptures Embarrassingly Failed every Time and unfortunately Many Suicides who Lost Their Faith. 1975 and the California's in 1995 Many Suicides.@@velkyn1

Check out this vid: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8UaA6NemMsg.htmlsi=WXCFh0JzmX2gmG2-

Honestly, if I was around during this time, I’d rather have been a slave to someone and gotten food/drink/shelter than died with my sick child in some dirty city corner because of starvation.

@@patrickmeyer2598 You completely, maybe intentionally miss the point. Wouldn't god know there is no 'good' version of owning another human being?

@@patrickmeyer2598 So it's intentional then. Very sad.

@@patrickmeyer2598Thank you for sharing that. I know it may have been frustrating to engage with some atheists but just know people are watching and seeing you fight the good fight. God Bless you

@@patrickmeyer2598 A simple response to this would be, it's cognitive dissonance that has people arrive at a position that is at odds with the facts they are clearly aware of. oddly, I too go to great lengths to understand what motivates people whose position I'm at odds with. And what I invariably find is when confronting a Theist with a reality that they have difficulty explaining is, they don't. They lie, misrepresent and claim a higher authority that requires no proof nor reasoning.

by accepting trinity christianity you are lost in this world and the hereafter. jesus like all prophets taught monotheism

God bless you, Tiff. You're doing great.

Busy = you are in great shape! Trust me, better yet trust God. The people that have time on their hands are the ones that are scheming. It may be difficult, but with each passing moment, know that every step you take is a righteous step and God smiles upon you. Nothing you have done, or will do is overlooked by God, but he is tallying each and every good deed you do to one day read them back to you. If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Colossians 3:1‭-‬4 KJV 1. Hear the Gospel. (Romans 10:17, John 8:32) 2. Believe the Gospel (Hebrews 11:6, John 20:31) 3. Repent of past sins (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30) 4. Confess faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10, Matthew 10:32) 5. Be Baptized (Galatians 3:27, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) 6. Be faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10) Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you. Romans 16:16 KJV

@@MastaE2288 too easy folks. jesus said beware of a sheep in wolf clothing coming after me teaching the opposite of my message ' greatest command is to worship our lord the one god only ' Paul ' god is 3 coequal godheads ' Muhammad ' god is one worship the creator only not the created '

@@etzelkaplan9677 I'll be honest. I am really not sure what you are trying to say.

most slaveowners did not wantonly damage and destroy their own investments for sadistic fun......... Tell that to all the women slaves that were raped by their masters.

Slavery also arises due to economics. If a person does not have an asset to surrender, they have to put themselves on hold. There are also prisoners of war who could be made slaves until whatever is decided. This is as recent as the 20th century. In short, yes, there are similarities and differences and I think both need to be seen in their respective context.

Lol…I like how benevolent you make American slavery sound. While I won’t argue that the issue is certainly more nuanced than how it’s been depicted, to own another human is cruel enough by itself. To know that a man (the so-called master) can sell you and your offspring, or simply have his way with your wife or daughter anytime he wants is Auschwitz level cruelty even if this master chooses not to do any of those things. The power to do so is is just as bad as doing it regardless.

@@desertdetroiter428 I have never in my life argued that human enslavement was "benevolent."

@@billbadson7598 well it’s hella annoying when people (who are almost never black) act as if the practice had a silver lining. It didn’t. I can’t think of one good thing that came out of American Antebellum slavery. And as the years go by, it looks progressively worse as technology allows us to get an even better picture of the depravity.

In the chapter of leviticus 25, it mentions a lot to not rule over them ruthlessly and something about years working and year of jubilee not sure if that counts for something. Exodus 21:2 says about releasing a slave after 6 years. I am not sure how this works out, I am no expert in the OT or in the ancient world.

I agree, as he keeps conflating the treatment for Hebrew servants (indentured servitude) to that of the non-Hebrew. It is this difference between the two groups that seem to be immoral for the non-Hebrew. IF one were able to tell the difference between the treatment proscribed for Hebrews in Leviticus 26:39-45 before reading the passage you provide(leviticus 25:44-46), then do you think they could more easily see the difference in treatment allowed by the Bible for themselves, or do you disagree?

Male Hebrew servants debts were to be "forgiven" rather they were paid in full or not at year of Jubilee. (Female servants had a different set of rules as well as foreign servants). I think the key word is sojourn which means temporary stay. Just a hebrews could sell themselves into indentured servitude, so could foreigners. The scripture mean that if the year of jubilee had not yet passed, and the master died while still having servants, their death doesn't result in servants gaining their "freedom" and they are to continue to work for the sons as an inheritance until that time Jubilee or they have paid off their debts. The regarding the foreign slaves be in response to foreigners not having any rights to the land, thus, a continuation of servitude may be imminent to obtain food, housing, security, etc. that hebrews were inherited as the chosen people but, the law required the Hebrews treat them as natives. If you read the story of Ruth, she was actually a foreigner. She was a Moabite refugee in the promise land. She was the great-grandmother of King David. I welcome other interpretations. I have no theology training but this has been my understanding of OT servitude. "You must not oppress foreigners. You know what it's like to be a foreigner, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. 9 "Don't take advantage of a stranger. You know what it's like to be a stranger; you were strangers in Egypt - Exodus 23:9 "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God." -Leviticus 19:33-34

@@GuessWhoAsks Non-hebrews were not treated immorally. (well, I am sure some were but it was not because scripture condoned it. Everything points to the exact opposite)

@@metorphoric Given what we now know of human nature, the power imbalance inherent in slavery would mean a large proportion of the slaves would be physically and sexually abused regardless of the _limited_ protection given by scripture. This is an abuser's charter. Strangely, this is important to make clear because of the way the economy is heading with permanent mass unemployment and low wages with the rise of AI, robotics and quantum computing.

Check Jewish commentary on Numbers 31. In war people die.

"No, you're wrong." **leaves** are my favorite type of comment lmao

Well if you read entire old testament than yes it it hinted that foreign Slaves could also free themselves.

@@Hoe-numan5 I don’t think what you’re saying tracks or can be reconciled with Leviticus 25 : 44

@@WePlugGOODMusic it can be reconciled

@@Hoe-numan5 What Passages? Chapters? Verses? Or just take your word for it?

​@@Hoe-numan5typical lying slavery apologist

Exodus 21:26 An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye

Exodus 21:20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result

1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you-although if you can gain your freedom, do so

1 Timothy 1:10 for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him

Exactly. And there are several New Testament passages that slowly erode the structure of slavery over time: 1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you-although if you can gain your freedom, do so Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him John 15:15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus 1 Timothy 1:10 for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

@@trentnelson984 None of those verse condemn slavery, or command Christians not to own slaves. Christianity had to borrow from Humanism in order to finally rid itself of slavery, 1800 years late.

@@cygnusustus It was humanism of US which made slavery brutal.Humanism gave us communism which killed over 100 million and all the world wars of last century

@jtotheb-ip2hh I never said anything about Roman slavery, so not sure what your point was. Sure, Christians eventually opposed slavery. They had to borrow from Humanism to do it. It's not in their scriptures. And of course, you left out the fact that Christians also supported slavery. They cited your Bible to do it. So...everything I said was "exactly" correct.

​@@cygnusustusit does condemn slave trade

"... I was like- that’s… not a slave tho?? That’s kinda like community service or a butler." No. “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Would you beat your slaves with a rod? Would you beat them so badly it takes them atwo days to recover? There are more rules that allow people to be passed on to their children as inheritance.

In what universe do we get to keep community workers and butlers as property if they are from another country or tribe along with their childeen and pass them to the owners children as an inheritance as legislated in Leviticus 25:44-46? Or if the community worker or butler is a local male, we can give them a wife from the women sold to you by their fathers. And if the butler leaves your service, you get to keep his wife and kids forever as per Exodus 21:4? Slavery in the bible was nothing like community workers or butlers. Especially if the slave was a foreigner or woman. Biblical slavery was every bit as much as transatlantic slaver because the transatlantic slavers got their laws and morals on slavery directly from the bible. Pure filth and moral depravity.

the bible is the origin of the abolition movement, it is not a perfect moral state in comparison to today (unless you consider minimum wage a form of indentured servitude), but it is a clear advancement to our present day in comparison with the rest of the world at the time it was written

​@@jaclo3112 But the First Epistle to Timothy -reveals a disdain/condemnation for the slave trade, proclaiming it to be contrary to sound doctrine. He explains to Timothy that those who live a life based on love do not have to fear the law of God; that “the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” it mentions "slave traders" as one of the groups for whom the law is intended. The passage includes them in a list of behaviors that are considered contrary to sound doctrine, suggesting that engaging in the practice of slave trading is viewed as sinful.

@Supreme_Giga_Chad one doesn't have to be a slave trader to buy a slave. You are simply a customer. Or you get your slave from the prisoners of war that your tribe/religion/country defeated as per the bible. Timothy epistle NEVER outlaws slavery. It simply condemns slave traders. This also explains why 1 Peter 2:18 disgustingly commands slaves obey slave masters, even the cruel ones. Pure filth.

I don't know, man. I think I have a brain. Because you know, if I didn't, I would probably die.

Is looking up religious channels to find a video on Christian ethics just to go into the comment section to make a wife sweeping comment that you are implicitly more intelligent and reasonable than the entire religious world a behavior someone with a brain would partake in?

It does condone slavery Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Just be mindful here: there are passages that do condone slavery; however they are all limited to the Mosaic law- which is temporary and not necessarily reflecting divine, moral law. These are among the laws that Christ said were given because of hardness of heart. Muslims will often point to these passages as well in apologetics in order to relativize and disarm Christian critics of Islamic approval of slavery. The difference is that Muhammad elevated these beliefs to the level of eternal, divine law that is still valid today in every place. The Mosaic law no longer applies in the mind of Christianity- which takes Jesus as the standard of morality

@@amyrenee1361my dude did you even watch the video

It does not matter how you try and frame it. The men who wrote the bible were fine with slavery, it was normal to them. A god would know better.... ipso facto the bible is not from a god.

@@roscius6204 The slavery of the OT times was completely different compared to modern slavery. You’re contextualizing old times with current slavery context.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8UaA6NemMsg.htmlsi=WXCFh0JzmX2gmG2-

For a period of time, 7 years, i believe, he said, and maintaining the rights of any other human. You must have missed that part. Oops.

@@KevinSmile yes you are right. It doesn't count as slavery if it's only 7 years.

@@KevinSmile Only for Hebrew Slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves can be left for life!!!

Terminology. Servant, slave were the same thing. Servants felt safe. Think about it while doing your menial tasks at work making money for your master, boss excuse my wording. Are you a slave to corporations?

@@GergKowvit do you really think working at a job you can freely walk away from at any time is slavery? I suggest looking up modern slavery and then tell me it just like any other job, I guess you also say women are prostitutes if you buy them dinner so why complain about sex trafficing. No I am not a slave because I have a paid job that has been recognised in law giving me a lot of rights and protections. for instance I get a national minimum wage (not as good a s a living wage) i can quit any time, I won't be physically punished, I have legally mandated breaks...if me and my family were unable to leave for SEVEN YEARS then yes I would be a slave.

How many black slaves did Mohamed have?

What’s the truth?

How?

@@GergKowvit There is no section in the Bible which says that you have to release slaves purchased from the people around. In fact they can be part of one's inheritance.

This last part is a good point. Although I'm not necessarily agreeing with you (Paul also tells slaves to obey their masters, but I'm not saying that's an affirmation of slavery necessarily.), I do think it's always critical to recognize the differences between the Old Law and the New Law of Christ. This video pretty much just focuses on the Old Law, which has been fulfilled.

Bunch of liars.

Is it immoral to have a butler? A nanny? A live in home nurse? A landscaper? All would be considered slaves in the Bible.

Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.

​@@tomasrocha6139stop lying there is no mention of any sex Slavery in the entire passage.

​@@tomasrocha6139 Bible forbids sexual slavery 👇 Leviticus 19:29 states : “ 'Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.

​@@Hoe-numan5you're desperately lying

Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave is to be put to death.” - Exodus 21:16... The passage you're refrencing, I'm confident relates to Volentary Indentureship, which is far from how we imagine modern slavery. If you learn anything more I'd love to hear your take.

Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God

Glad you reminded me of that one too.

Exodus 23:9 Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt

​@@Liam_OutreachOutcomesDeut 24:7 makes it clear this is specifically for Israelites kidnapped. Even if we agree that kidnapping is against the law even if they are foreign then it only prohibits this one particular method. Deut 20:10-14 makes it clear they can be taken as plunder from war. Leviticus 25 clearly shows they are allowed in general. If you feel exodus 21 conflicts with the passages in Leviticus and Deut then you have a different problem.

I know too many socialists who would say the same thing.

The fact that he missed Lev 25.44-46 shows just how weak his lies are. Horrible answer.

Exodus 21:7 7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do. Leviticus 25:44-46 44 [a]The male and female slaves that you possess-these you shall acquire from the nations round about you. 45 You may also acquire them from among the resident aliens who reside with you, and from their families who are with you, those whom they bore in your land. These you may possess, 46 and bequeath to your children as their hereditary possession forever. You may treat them as slaves. But none of you shall lord it harshly over any of your fellow Israelites. Exodus 21:4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall leave alone.

​@@Dave_Langer​​ try to read the entire old testament LoL ​​Voluntary servitude is a completely different situation. Voluntary servitude arises when a person becomes so poor that they cannot make a living, cannot provide for themselves, and sell themselves into a relationship with a person who has money and can provide for the poor person. The Hebrew word for this is “ebed.” meaning servant, or bondman. The Bible describes Israel as the Lord’s bondservant, or slave, the same word ebed. You quote the following: “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46) You have plucked this verse out of context and we must look at the whole context. “If any Israelites living near you become so poor that they sell themselves to you as a slave, you shall not make them do the work of a slave. They shall stay with you as hired workers and serve you until the next Year of Restoration.” (Lev. 25:39-40) The issue of poverty was one of the reasons that people sold themselves as servants. There were also provisions for freedom. They could be bought back by a relative, or by their own money. Working for someone else did not mean that they received nothing. “By their own money” (v. 49) meant a certain freedom to gain money and buy their own freedom. We have no reason to believe that the same was not true for the foreigners in the land. The verse says, “purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land,” and these were probably people like the Hebrews who fell on hard times and were poor. Being a servant in another household was better than starving. The rights are spelled out for the Hebrews but they would also apply to the foreigners who were welcomed into the land. The people were taught: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner; remember that you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not mistreat any widow or orphan.” (Exodus 22:21-22) “Suppose a foreigner living with you becomes rich, while some Israelites become poor and sell themselves as slaves to that foreigner or to a member of that foreigner's family. After they are sold, they still have the right to be bought back. A brother or an uncle or a cousin or another close relative may buy them back; or if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom. They must consult the one who bought them, and they must count the years from the time they sold themselves until the next Year of Restoration and must set the price for their release on the basis of the wages paid hired workers. They must refund a part of the purchase price according to the number of years left, as if they had been hired on an annual basis. Their master must not treat them harshly. If they are not set free in any of these ways, they and their children must be set free in the next Year of Restoration. Israelites cannot be permanent slaves, because the people of Israel are the LORD's slaves. He brought them out of Egypt; he is the LORD their God. (Lev. 25:47-55) It may be that the foreigners living in the land who became poor would not have relatives around to buy them back. The issue of voluntary selling oneself in servant hood is important. The year of Restoration and the Sabbatical years were important to the Hebrews since it restored people to their original property allotted to them when they entered the land. It offered a fresh start again. However, the foreigners who lived in the land did not have land allotted to them. The only option would have been to expel them from the land which could have had dire results for them. In the case of the foreigner who became poor the economic advantage of living with a wealthy person brought security. This arrangement entered into voluntarily was better than poor employment, low grade and bad pay when one did have a job. Remember that in 1200 BC one was limited in terms of work for pay. The central issue here is that slavery was initiated BY the slave, NOT by the owners. What was involved was the economic relief of poverty of the poor person who sought to be taken in by some person of wealth. The passage about inheritance needs some caveats. First, the verses says “you may” pass them on to your children, not that it was automatic, necessary, expected, or standard practice. It may be that the prosperity changes could have reduced the owner’s ability to support the slave. Second, this may well refer to servants who did not want to go free as expressed in Exodus 21.5, “But if the slave declares that he loves his master, his wife, and his children and does not want to be set free,” there was a ceremony at the place of worship for declaring him to be a slave for life. There is a similar procedure described in Deuteronomy 15:16 in which a person could become a slave for life because “he may love you and your family and be content to stay.” Third, given the fact that slaves could earn money, they could buy their own freedom.-- “if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom.” (Lev. 25:49) Ezekiel 47:22 (ESV) states: "You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you, they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel." This verse is part of a larger passage in the book of Ezekiel describing the division of the land among the twelve tribes of Israel. It emphasizes the inclusive nature of the inheritance, extending it to both the native-born children of Israel and the sojourners residing among them. The idea is to treat those living among the Israelites as equal participants in the distribution of land. "Sojourners" in biblical terms typically refer to foreigners or strangers residing in a land temporarily. These individuals are not native to the place where they are living but are there for various reasons such as travel, work, servant/slave or seeking refuge. The concept of treating sojourners justly and integrating them into the community is often emphasized in biblical teachings, promoting hospitality and fairness in their treatment. The verse from Ezekiel 47:22 underscores the idea that sojourners, along with native-born individuals, should share in the inheritance and be considered as part of the community. Selling Children into slavery: When a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the menservant are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11) First, we need to ask why a man sells his daughter? Was it because he did not love her? Was it because he was hard-hearted? Or, was it because he could not support her? Selling daughters was for the daughter’s own good since it meant a life related to someone who could afford her while the father, being poor, could not. Moreover, he could not afford a dowry to give to a perspective husband. The passage above involves the secondary position of a concubine for the owner or a wife for his son. “When a daughter was sold into slavery by her father, this was intended both as a payment of debt and as a way of obtaining a husband for her without a dowry. She has more rights than a male in the sense that she can be freed from slavery if her master does not provide her with food, clothing and marital rights.”

He didn't miss it, he purposely avoided it to keep his narrative to deceive his audience

like how we have murder and manslaughter.... though one is unintentional...

@@Giantcrabz it was a way to get rid of debt. Can you really say the homeless situation in these American and Canadian cities is a better system?

Nope. Foreign slaves under Mosaic law had no protections. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inheritance. Their treatment was every bit as bad, if not worse, than slave treatment in Caribbean and Antebellum South. Bergsma lied when he said "True slavery is outlawed for Israelites.' and "The other people around Israel could be enslaved, but only temporarily." Leviticus 25 says different: 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 AND YOU SHALL TAKE THEM AS INHERITANCE FOR YOUR CHILDREN, to inherit them for a possession; THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOREVER: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. If you have to lie to protect your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs. Your religion condones slavery.

@@Jeff55369 "it was a way to get rid of debt" It was not. Chattel slaves were obtained by conquest or birth, and they were kept for life. Stop lying. "Can you really say the homeless situation in these American and Canadian cities is a better system?" Than chattel slavery? Absolutely.

@@cygnusustus I was speaking of slaves under mosaic law, not chattel slavery. As for your other comments, you can't take one verse and separate it from the context of the rest. All of them together form the guidelines of the societal rules listed in the text. You're also reading a translated work, and not everything has been translated properly. Furthermore, there are special instances, like the earing the speaker in the video mentioned, that prolonged the slave's "employment" from 7 years to a lifetime indenture. However, that was a voluntary position, not something to place someone into against their will.

Sure, why not? Slavery was, is, and always will be a reality. It might be 'okay' to have slaves, but nobody is arguing this is a good.

It's about corporal punishment read the whole chapter.

Corporal punishment

​@@TrickyLoudso evil 😂 I've read rabbinic law. It's pretty fair considering most cultures.

Yes, if you would search a little further, you would understand that "for ever" does not mean what you think it does in our conception. Often the translation "for ever" from Hebrew simply means something like "for this age." As in, not literally an eternity, but while the current age exists in the structure it does. Look it up.

@TheBanjoShowOfficial Verse 40 says that fellow Israelites are to be kept as bondmen only until the year of the jubilee, whereas Verse 46 (above) states that strangers may be kept as slaves forever. These ideas are clearly contrasted, and foreign slaves are not let go at the jubilee as claimed in the video. Regarding the Hebrew word rendered "for ever" in Verse 46, it is "olam" (Strong's h5769), and I am very familiar with it. In this context, it actually does mean forever, or for life. If you check various English translations of the verse, you will see that they consistently translate "olam" here to mean forever.

​@Pedant_Patrol Plus on top of that, the phrase "for your children after you" implies generational/perpetual ownership. It amazes me how many Christians try and skirt away from the text plain reading. The accusation..."fundamentalist" is boring....presuppositionally, everyone is a "fundamentalist"

@christianparks3370 Funny your name is Christian. In my experience, most Christians don't actually care about the Bible or the God of the Bible. They only care about their eago and their vanity.

Voluntary servitude is a completely different situation. Voluntary servitude arises when a person becomes so poor that they cannot make a living, cannot provide for themselves, and sell themselves into a relationship with a person who has money and can provide for the poor person. The Hebrew word for this is “ebed.” meaning servant, or bondman. The Bible describes Israel as the Lord’s bondservant, or slave, the same word ebed. You quote the following: “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46) You have plucked this verse out of context and we must look at the whole context. “If any Israelites living near you become so poor that they sell themselves to you as a slave, you shall not make them do the work of a slave. They shall stay with you as hired workers and serve you until the next Year of Restoration.” (Lev. 25:39-40) The issue of poverty was one of the reasons that people sold themselves as servants. There were also provisions for freedom. They could be bought back by a relative, or by their own money. Working for someone else did not mean that they received nothing. “By their own money” (v. 49) meant a certain freedom to gain money and buy their own freedom. We have no reason to believe that the same was not true for the foreigners in the land. The verse says, “purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land,” and these were probably people like the Hebrews who fell on hard times and were poor. Being a servant in another household was better than starving. The rights are spelled out for the Hebrews but they would also apply to the foreigners who were welcomed into the land. The people were taught: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner; remember that you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not mistreat any widow or orphan.” (Exodus 22:21-22) “Suppose a foreigner living with you becomes rich, while some Israelites become poor and sell themselves as slaves to that foreigner or to a member of that foreigner's family. After they are sold, they still have the right to be bought back. A brother or an uncle or a cousin or another close relative may buy them back; or if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom. They must consult the one who bought them, and they must count the years from the time they sold themselves until the next Year of Restoration and must set the price for their release on the basis of the wages paid hired workers. They must refund a part of the purchase price according to the number of years left, as if they had been hired on an annual basis. Their master must not treat them harshly. If they are not set free in any of these ways, they and their children must be set free in the next Year of Restoration. Israelites cannot be permanent slaves, because the people of Israel are the LORD's slaves. He brought them out of Egypt; he is the LORD their God. (Lev. 25:47-55) It may be that the foreigners living in the land who became poor would not have relatives around to buy them back. The issue of voluntary selling oneself in servant hood is important. The year of Restoration and the Sabbatical years were important to the Hebrews since it restored people to their original property allotted to them when they entered the land. It offered a fresh start again. However, the foreigners who lived in the land did not have land allotted to them. The only option would have been to expel them from the land which could have had dire results for them. In the case of the foreigner who became poor the economic advantage of living with a wealthy person brought security. This arrangement entered into voluntarily was better than poor employment, low grade and bad pay when one did have a job. Remember that in 1200 BC one was limited in terms of work for pay. The central issue here is that slavery was initiated BY the slave, NOT by the owners. What was involved was the economic relief of poverty of the poor person who sought to be taken in by some person of wealth. The passage about inheritance needs some caveats. First, the verses says “you may” pass them on to your children, not that it was automatic, necessary, expected, or standard practice. It may be that the prosperity changes could have reduced the owner’s ability to support the slave. Second, this may well refer to servants who did not want to go free as expressed in Exodus 21.5, “But if the slave declares that he loves his master, his wife, and his children and does not want to be set free,” there was a ceremony at the place of worship for declaring him to be a slave for life. There is a similar procedure described in Deuteronomy 15:16 in which a person could become a slave for life because “he may love you and your family and be content to stay.” Third, given the fact that slaves could earn money, they could buy their own freedom.-- “if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom.” (Lev. 25:49) Ezekiel 47:22 (ESV) states: "You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you, they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel." This verse is part of a larger passage in the book of Ezekiel describing the division of the land among the twelve tribes of Israel. It emphasizes the inclusive nature of the inheritance, extending it to both the native-born children of Israel and the sojourners residing among them. The idea is to treat those living among the Israelites as equal participants in the distribution of land. "Sojourners" in biblical terms typically refer to foreigners or strangers residing in a land temporarily. These individuals are not native to the place where they are living but are there for various reasons such as travel, work, servant/slave or seeking refuge. The concept of treating sojourners justly and integrating them into the community is often emphasized in biblical teachings, promoting hospitality and fairness in their treatment. The verse from Ezekiel 47:22 underscores the idea that sojourners, along with native-born individuals, should share in the inheritance and be considered as part of the community. Foreigners became Jewish Try to read the entire old testament

Secondly, if you were convicted of a crime whose punishment was not death and you could not pay the fine (i.e. theft), you would become a slave to the man who you stole from. Without jails, this is how a society avoids the wicked cruelty of Islamic culture and the cutting off of hands for theft.

Thirdly, handling POWs. Instead of murdering every warrior you encountered on the battlefield, if you captured them, they became your slave for life. The Year of Jubilee did not apply to them and they could be passed down generationally.

Fourthly, sojourners in the land (i.e. Ruth) could not be enslaved because they had no legal status in Israel. The nation was to remember that they were slaves in Egypt.

Fifthly, the Year of Jubilee. We have zero evidence from biblical history that Israel ever practiced this law and significant reason to believe they didn’t. When Israel was sent into slavery, the number of years they would be exiled were the number of years they didn’t give the land it’s Sabbath rest. The land’s rest is the foundation for the Year of Jubilee. In conclusion, the good doctor seems to be greatly mistaken in his view. It seems he would like to defend a generous perspective of biblical slavery without being accurate to the text. As for Paul and the New Testament, the church had almost no power. It wouldn’t have changed the culture or left people on the street. In fact it did the exact opposite. But don’t put lipstick on a pig

@Dave_Langer Does Leviticus 25:44-46 allow slavery? Absolutely not.** Remember that God gave Israel and entire law code. Every law is connected to every other law. None of these passages are given in isolation. Therefore, to properly evaluate Leviticus 25, we have to look at the regulations God gave previously (as a foundation) and subsequently (as a clarification). **And they completely destroy any idea that Leviticus 25 is talking about slavery.** Two verses make the entire matter clear: >“Whoever **steals a man** and **sells him**, and **anyone found in possession of him**, ***shall be put to death***.” (Exodus 21:16, ESV) >"You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, **he may live among you in any place he chooses**, in whichever of your villages he prefers; **you must not oppress him**." (Deuteronomy 23:15-16, ESV) **These two passages prohibit slavery.** * You cannot steal a person, which means you cannot enslave a person against their will. * You cannot sell a person, which means people are not property. * If a person working for you wants to leave, they can, and the Law protects their freedom to do so. You simply can’t have slaves in your society if you follow these two passages. These two passages lay the groundwork that we need in order to evaluate Leviticus 25 correctly. Let’t examine these verses directly now: >“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.” (Leviticus 25:44, ESV) At first, that seems bad. It seems to discuss exactly what the two passages above forbid. Or does it? Look at the word for “slaves.” In Hebrew, it is the word *ebed.* As any Hebrew dictionary will tell you, this word can mean “servant,” “slave,” “minister,” “adviser,” or “official.” How do you know which of these it means at any given point? You examine the context. Based on the Exodus and Deuteronomy passages above, we can safely say that this word does not mean “slave” in Leviticus 25. It cannot, or else it breaks those two commands. The better translation therefore is “**servant**,” or in modern-day lingo, “**worker**” or “**employee**.” Next, examine the word for “buy.” Exodus 21:16 forbids owning and selling people, so how can Leviticus 25 allow *buying* people? Again, let’s look at what the word means. In Hebrew, this word is *qnh*, meaning “buy,” or “acquire,” or even “create.” Or in modern lingo, “**hire**.” Exodus 21:16 forbids selling people. So who is the money being given to in Leviticus 25:44? The worker themselves. **This is describing a hiring process, paying someone to work for you.** Let’s use these two bits of information to clarify the verse. Now it reads: >“As for your male and female servants whom you may have: you may hire male and female servants from among the nations that are around you.” (Leviticus 25:44) Is there any moral atrocity in hiring foreigners to work for you? I can’t think of one. Some may object, asking “How do you this is hiring, instead of enslaving?” Simply read two passages above. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 clarifies that servants are never slaves. They can leave their “masters” any time they want to, for any reason, and the Law protects their ability to do so. They can then live wherever they want in the land, meaning that they are not second-class citizens. They’re equals with everyone else in the land. Let’s continue: >“You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.” (Leviticus 25:45, ESV) Let’s apply the clarification of Exodus and Deuteronomy to this again, which yields: >“You may also hire from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.” (Leviticus 25:45) The first part is fine, as it again describes hiring people to work for you. But the end has a tricky word: “property.” Exodus 21:16 forbids owning people. **Anyone found in possession of another person is instantly put to death**. So what can this be describing? It turns out to be simple. The word simply means that they are your servants, not anyone else’s. In English, calling someone your “property” is heinous, and rightly so. But Leviticus wasn’t written in English, and that’s not what it means. It only means that these servants can be yours, instead of someone else’s. If we want to express in English what the Hebrew connotes, it would sound like this: >“You may also hire from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be yours.” (Leviticus 25:45) Now for the last verse: >“You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:46, ESV) Let’s again run this through the clarification that Exodus and Deuteronomy provide: >“You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make servants of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:46) That’s a bit better, but we’re still left with the nagging impression that Israelites were passing foreigners off to each other as possessions. What’s going on? Again, it all comes down to what the Hebrew word really means. The word for “inherit,” *nahal*, can indeed mean “give as an inheritance.” Yet it can also mean simply “assign.” Given that Exodus 21:16 forbids owning people as property, we cannot justify “give as an inheritance” as an acceptable translation. We’re left with “assign,” which is certainly understandable in the context. **If a man hires a servant to work for him, he can also assign that worker to work for his son**. Yet we still have that word “forever,” or “for life,” as some translations say. What does this refer to? Exodus 21 provides the answer: >But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant forever. (Exodus 21:5-6) First of all, note how clearly this forbids the idea of slavery. The servant has the option to go free, as all servants do. Second, notice who has the power in this situation. The master cannot force the servant to stay. **The only way a servant becomes a servant forever is by that servant’s own choice.** Leviticus 25:46 refers to these servants who have chosen to serve perpetually. A master can assign these servants to his children, to work for them. Leviticus 25:46 clarifies Exodus 21:5-6, stating that the service is to the family, not simply to the person. **Yet - never forget Deuteronomy 23:15-16. **These verses declare that any servant can choose to go free at any time - even those who previously decided to serve perpetually. Thus, if a master assigns a servant to work for his son, but the son begins mistreating the servant, that servant does not have to stay. They can leave whenever they want, even if they previously decided to serve that family perpetually. They are not bound to an abusive situation. If the family they work for starts to mistreat them, they can leave and find a better place to work. Finally, we have this line: >“You may hire them as servants, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:46, ESV) What on earth does this mean? It seems to imply that you can’t rule ruthlessly over an Israelite brother, but you could over a foreigner. If we only had this sentence to judge by, we might be tempted to think such a thing. But thankfully, Exodus 21 rides to our rescue again. Exodus 21 forbids treating servants ruthlessly. Any servant who is injured by their master is instantly freed. Likewise, Deuteronomy 23 allows any servant to leave any ruthless master at will. Because of these, we cannot understand this to mean that foreigners can be treated poorly. Thankfully, the passage never says they can. Rather, the passage seems to highlight the difference between Israelites and foreigners. A foreigner whom you hire may work for you for a time, but then return to their own land. But an Israelite brother will be with you in the land forever. Therefore, you treat them well. While an Israelite brother might serve you for a time as your worker, he may one day be a land-owner like you. Treat brothers as equals, even if they currently in a low situation. Or to say it simply: treat a brother like a brother. Leviticus 25:44-46 only seems to support slavery if you rip it out of its context in the rest of the Law. But if you let the entire Law inform the situation, any hint of slavery disappears. When you let the foundation of Exodus 21 and the clarification of Deuteronomy 23 speak, you end up with a perfectly moral code of employment for foreigners: >“As for your male and female servants whom you may have: you may hire male and female servants from among the nations that are around you. You may also hire from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your servants. You may assign them to your sons after you to receive as a servants who have chosen to serve you perpetually. You may hire them as servants, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:44-46).

If your English translation says the man is “Selling” his daughter, then that translation is failing you. This is more of a man arranging a marriage for his daughter. In some cases, it would be sending his daughter to work as a maidservant for someone else, and then someone in that family falls in love with her and wants to marry her. The man is not selling his daughter into slavery! Further, the phrase “she shall not go out as the male servants do,” refers to the extra protections and rights given to her because she is a female. It talks about marital rights Read the rest of the passage, my friend. It states that anyone who marries her must be able to provide for her food, her clothing, and her offspring etc. If she is not thus provided for, she is released from that abusive man with no other legal hoops to jump through. This is a law *protecting* women from abuse, my friend.

@@Hoe-numan5 The only one ripping things and lying about the context here is you. Its clear what these verses mean. And yes it allows it since it gives rules and regulates it No where in the bible does it say the owning of another personas property aka slavery is not allowed But it sure does tell you all the ways you can. Stealing a man has nothing to do with slavery. that is kidnapping a free Jew, Its not talking about the non-Jews but nice try. Those passages do not prohibit slavery, its talking about kidnapping. If it was about slavery it would say slavery but it doesn't. Stop twisting what the bible says when we all know the bible has all the rules about slavery being ok. This is starting to get embarrassing for you Not even gong to bother with the rest of your nonsense but you can easily go watch a Dr Josh video that talks about slavery and all these lies you are telling you refute your nonsense. Since you cant even be honest about these first two, I am not even going to bother with the rest.

Your proposal makers no sense and it's not feasible in the real world.

@@Giantcrabz The people of Israel demanded Monarchs in imitation of the pagan nations around them and God conceded to their demand with a warning that the Kings would abuse their authority. Therefore, God set limitations on monarchical authority to prevent abuse of the people's rights. See Deuteronomy 17:14-20.

It's voluntary servitude.

Being a slave in a decent family back then wouldn’t be bad, you’re literally part of their household and they should have your best interest in mind. Tell me, who would in their right mind oppress and treat bad their worker? A cruel person. God doesn’t like cruel people. If you have a particularly cruel master and decide to run away, the master cannot kill you according to these laws, and you are supposed to be taken care of and basically freed if you run away. Keep in mind this is Old Testament law for Jewish civil matters, not for the world…. And the callback to the horrible slave trade in the Americas might show how disillusioned you are, because everything with servitude must follow with cruel masters that hate people based on race. News flash, this didn’t work that way.

Sicut Dudum

Cite your source. Don't just make unsupported statements. Popes prohibited enslavement in the New World. See Pope Paul III "Sublimis Deus".

@@nicolamcostello Dum Diversas

​@@nobey1kanobey don't forget about Sublimis Deus.

aha and I guess there was an old world acceptable version of murder as well, how about rape.... well I guess it is the bible.....

It is a classic situation of lying to protect your beliefs. Foreign slaves under Mosaic law had no protections. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inheritance. Their treatment was every bit as bad, if not worse, than slave treatment in Caribbean and Antebellum South. Bergsma lied when he said "True slavery is outlawed for Israelites.' and "The other people around Israel could be enslaved, but only temporarily." Leviticus 25 says different: 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 AND YOU SHALL TAKE THEM AS INHERITANCE FOR YOUR CHILDREN, to inherit them for a possession; THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOREVER: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. If you have to lie to protect your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs. Your religion condones slavery.

Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.

@@cygnusustus keep trying to hold on to the belief that the Bible condones slavery. you guys hold onto that verse for your very atheistic lives but let me ask you this. in verse 45 when it says that you can buy the children of strangers and their families, who is the buyer? if these people are free then they can sell their services alot like the verse says about the male and female slaves in verse 44 you only read one part of the verse and neglect to read and understand the rest. Exodus 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. buying a slave that was forced into slavery would be having a kidnapped person in your possession and you would be put to death. so then these people chose to be in servitude.

@@cygnusustus and how would you know how slaves/servants in israel were treated back then? do you have some kind of source to back that up?

Yes, please. Maher would LOVE to use this to show how religion forces one to defend absolute evil.

This video resonates as a lying for Jesus moment - Leviticus 25:44-46

Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into conjugal slavery.

@@tomasrocha6139 I would LOVE to hear how Matt's guest would spin these verses. I'm sure that he would say that the father is selling the daughter to be a wife, not a prostitute. But it's horrific.

Eh not quite I think. I think it's also important to contextualize that a lot of these rules really only applied for the people of Israel, hence the specificity of a lot of these rules and rituals that took place during this time. We need to keep in mind *slavery* itself was normalized during this time period. I think it's a little arrogant to say it's supports it when we have the hindsight of over a THOUSAND YEARS to condemn it especially when such rules only really applied to people of the time. With that said I think the relavence of different text change over time, the Bible is no expection. Which is always important to keep in mind whenever we read these text. Tl:Dr :Context and Relavence matters a lot in biblical text

The very first thing I acknowledged was context. Regardless of whether or not slavery was normalized culturally during this time, the Bible outlines rules of how to properly treat and own slaves. By definition, that is condoning it. As to your "thousand years of hindsight to look back and condemn it" argument, God's infinite word ought to supercede temporary cultures, times, places...hence this is something I seriously struggle with when reading the Bible, because I have intellectual honesty when reading it.

@directback2284 Bible condones it. Period. There's no getting around the fact that God says slavery is fine. I think the guy being interviewed is just confused because he sees there's all these extras stipulations and you can only act in a kind and honoring way to slaves and they do have all these qualifications because the slaves still are made in God's image and must be treated as such. It's so different from any slavery we know that the guy answering the question confuses it for something else. But it's slavery. And God doesn't change, so if it was morally acceptable then, it's morally acceptable now. If course in America we have rules against that and God also says obey your government, so it would be still morally wrong in America for that reason.

Better men than I have bragged of being slaves or fools for Christ, so perhaps this subject has more cosmic proportions.@@jml5100

At best it doesn’t condemn slavery. It says to obey your master. I’m not sure God condones it, it’s allowed cuz of sin. Like many of the atrocities in the Bible, they happened but because of the human condition. I don’t blame God

Unfortunately, slavery was widespread in the ancient world.

Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.

There is plenty of justification - just not moral justification.

@@MyContext 💀 you got me

This man shows that degrees don't guarantee intelligence. He also believes in a literal Noah's ark and worldwide flood and at least is sympathetic to young earth creationism. I suspect this guy has created more atheists than Christopher Hitchens.

😎Best (and sanest) comment!

I appreciate the sentiment regarding slavery. However, what is this God that you claim which couldn't have stopped such in the first place?

@@MyContext You need to provide a more convincing argument or people will think you're a teen.

@@AallthewaytoZ2 I didn't present an argument. So, exactly what are you talking about?

@@MyContext You're making argumentative comments. You come across as a petulant teen wanting attention.

Are you freaking joking? The Founders didn't ban slavery because they cared about the slaves and didn't want them to hurt each other? 🤣🤣🤣 So selfless. It clearly had nothing to do with the fact that many of them owned slaves and would lose their fortunes if these people were freed, right? Can't wait for your defence of Nazism.

You are basically arguing for the pernicious effects of slavery on the human person. It renders them incapable of freedom and the responsibilities that come with it. Through progressive revelation in the best sense, the Church has come to understand slavery is intrinsically evil.

It was definitely condoned. God didn't say "don't do it" he said "when you do it then do it this way." That's condoning.

If done as God says, slavery would be kept minimal, and to the variety of slavery the guest was describing, and perhaps even peter out entirely, in a healthy prosperous Nation that follows God's word. @@jml5100

@@jml5100 what a ridiculous display of logic, (or more like lack thereof)

@@jml5100 Don’t kid yourself. If you have debt you’re a slave to it. Don’t confuse oppression with indentured servitude.

@@metorphoric what a ridiculous display of an argument (or lack thereof)

Where did you get that? Did you even watch the video or are you just commenting the first thing you want to believe?

@@TheBanjoShowOfficial I got it from the video. In which he repeatedly talks about how the Bible condones slavery. Clues were his use of the word slavery to refer to everything he was talking about. Supported by the Bible.

​@@_the__void_yes, Bible condone slavery. Even now slavery still exist. Every one who become laborer is slavery right ? And everyone who has debt work for pay debt

@@samueldani-gr6ge No, not at all. I said nothing about the "kind" of slavery. Only that, in his own words, he repeatedly referred to what the Bible condones as "slavery". Therefore, it logically follows that the Bible condones slavery. But certainly the Bible explicitly condones the slavery of non-Israelites, by force, while slaughtering those not to be kept as slaves. And taking slaves from other places. And it certainly does not make the same concessions about freeing them after a length of time. So the Bible condones slavery. It's not even contentious.

@@_the__void_ yes, he said about slavery non Israelite and how to treat them. After winning war, what Will u do to people who still live. Let them go so they can revenge to you another time. Feed them and make ur family starving. Or u slay them once for all ?

Well, one form of slavery in the Bible involves selling one's daughter into sexual slavery. The VAST majority of us view human traffickers as the lowest form of life. Shows how we view Biblical morality when we are forced to confront it head on.

@@Charlotte_Martel Excellent and insightful comment. I don't think the biblical authors are infallible; @KristinaDMoore may have the best comment on this thread. If you observe the videos with Dr John Bergsma, there's something off with both him and the interviewer.

@@AallthewaytoZ2 Thank you for the compliment. I usually like Matt's videos (the interviewer), but I sincerely hope that he doesn't have this guest back on. He really makes Christians look stupid/cruel by creating the false dichotomy btw God and science and by apologising for evil. Other commenters have said that he's a convert from Evangelicalism. It really shows.

No, because that would be a regression in history. Christianity itself is the force that progressed the world towards a hostility to slavery. God's dealings with humanity brings a progressive improvement over centuries and millinea. In other words, God didn't sweep in and end all social ills by ending all human evil at once, at least not since the flood. No, God laid down His moral rules, wherein if followed perfectly, it would mean the undoing of social ills such as slavery or poverty. And rather than domineering humanity, God kept a degree of distance from humanity, allowing for Ancient Israel to freely choose to follow through with its commitment to God. But because humanity is sinful, that space between God and man provides opportunity to sin. The sinfulness of man kept poverty and slavery a reality for longer than it needed to be. But God's spiritual improvement of humanity does not end with disobedient Israel. When the long prophesied Christ finally arrived on the scene, it marked the next stage for humanity and provided, more than ever, the moral ethic that would eat away at humanity's desensitized attitude towards institutions like slavery. And coming into the modern era, what we see are Christ followers taking the elevated moral standard of Jesus, and with it fighting and ultimately toppling the institution of chattle slavery. Slavery is still around today, but it's been driven into shadows, whereas it was once as common as McDonalds is now.