Another "What do we do with slavery in the OT?" thread

[Larry_Bunce]

Slavery was condoned, but Exodus 22:3 says that that if a thief could not make restitution to his victim, he was to be sold into slavery, and his purchase price given to the victim. That would indicate that slavery was considered a form of punishment.

[beaglelady]

@Larry_Bunce

Slavery was condoned, but Exodus 22:3 says that that if a thief could not make restitution to his victim, he was to be sold into slavery, and his purchase price given to the victim. That would indicate that slavery was considered a form of punishment.

Sometimes, but not always

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

The winking smiley face was meant to kid and express humor regarding the earlier discussion, not to encourage another round of slavery discussion. Stop forthwith!

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Larry_Bunce

Slavery was condoned, but Exodus 22:3 says that that if a thief could not make restitution to his victim, he was to be sold into slavery, and his purchase price given to the victim. That would indicate that slavery was considered a form of punishment.

Back to talking about OT slavery I see? Let me assert with evidence that “slave” is a gross mistranslation. The institution it refers to has no modern analogue, and only loosely parallels “bond servant”.

This article is a help description. Slave. - Smith's Bible Dictionary Online

So it is a gross misstatement to say that the “Bible endorses slavery” in the modern english meaning.

[beaglelady]

The OT accepts slavery, and a slave is a person who is owned, bought and sold (if a non-Hebrew). The NT does seem to be on a trajectory to end the practice.

[sfmatheson]

@Swamidass

So it is a gross misstatement to say that the “Bible endorses slavery” in the modern english meaning.

Huh!!! Come on. Read how the bible instructs Israel in going to war. Deuteronomy 20 and, even more diabolically, Numbers 31. The god of the OT not only endorses slavery and other jaw-dropping crimes against humanity – he commands them. There are sane ways to deal with this, but denying that the bible condones atrocities against humans – specifically those whom it flags as “the other” – is inexcusable. To attempt to redefine what is obviously human plunder as “not slavery” is not only inexcusable, it’s daft. Even if the wordplay were convincing, you would be left with a god who kinda likes slavery but definitely likes genocide and almost indescribably cruelty. The bible you’re quoting ought not be read in front of young children.

@jpm would like us to avoid this topic since it’s been visited way too often lately, so I will not contribute further. Just please, for the last time, gather enough integrity to stop defending the indefensible. It’s not necessary, and it makes you look really bad.

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

I meant “mistranslation” =).

I have read the bible. The right term, is “bond-servant”.