Slavery in the Bible
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- Many Jews and Christians today are uncomfortable with the views of slavery in the Bible; the practice is simply assumed, it is normally condoned, and it is never condemned. Even so, some Christian apologists argue that the Bible actively disapproves of slavery and was instrumental in opposing it in the modern era. But is that right? In this episode I interview one of the premiere experts on the question, Dr. Josh Bowen, who has written two books on the matter; in our discussion he explains what the Bible really says about slavery and how we can put its statements, assumptions, and laws in its own context instead of thinking that it fits comfortably in ours.
Dr. Bowen's latest book, "Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?", is available on Amazon.com: www.amazon.com...
I was in the process of questioning my faith when I learned about this topic. This was the topic that broke the camels back for me. I listened to the objections apologists and pastors would give to defend the Bible and then I listened to the rebuttals to those objections and found that I could no longer hold the position that the Bible was an anti-slavery book. It was in fact the pro-slavery. That's when I knew that I would not go back to being a Christian ever again and I fully became an Atheist. Thanks for talking about such an uncomfortable topic. I only hope that more Christians will have the courage to see these verses for what they are and come to terms with them.
edit:
Since I keep getting the same comment "It wasn't slavery like we think of nowadays it was indentured servitude." Here is my reply. The Bible talks about 2 different kinds of slavery. Debt slavery and Chattel slavery. See Ex 21:1-6 for an example of Debt slavery. See Lev: 25 44-46 for an example of Chattel slavery. Please stop saying it just indentured servitude. This is a half truth. The bible Endorses both types of slavery.
My 2cents... Bart brings up a law regarding daughters sold to slavery....his 21century morality finds this repulsive. What we as listeners are denied is a discussion of the context in the day it was written.... As Josh and Bart are speaking in exasperated tones you can piece together benefits this law actually had for women in their day in this situation. The Laws in the Bible are subtle enough that the culture of the day doesn't reject it out of hand. Steering a culture is like steering a ship it takes a lot of space to turn around. You really have to marinate in the things that seem repulsive to your 21 century morality..... isn't the obvious proof of it's success the Jewish people today and the entire Christian west?
As above, that's right. The type of slavery in the Bible is a lot different to 'modern' slavery. You would be freed after a set period. In a time when there was no welfare state, it was a way to be fed, while paying off debt. Sure it's not great. It would have been better to have some sort of welfare system. But it's better than starvation. Also, if you look at Jesus' teachings, it's pretty hard to believe he would have been pro-slavery.
@@1bengrubb This is what makes me sad. Every time I make a comment about my personal journey I get to see reply after reply of people bending over backwards to defend their favorite holy book and it's failures. It boggles my mind to see people defending slavery just because the Bible condones it. You are a prime example of what I was talking about in my comment. These are the excuses I've heard time and again in my research. This is what convinces me that religion is a poison to the mind. I genuinely hope that one day you realize what you are trying to justify and change for the better.
@@Dragoon803 it's not defending slavery it's the brilliance of the bible to eliminate it...you missed my very last comment.....it worked!!!!!! Don't you see?? We would still have slavery today ( in the west) if it wasn't for the Bible!! The Bible is solely responsible for the elimination of slavery in the West
@@peterwallis4288
RE: "The type of slavery in the Bible is a lot different to 'modern' slavery. "
Dr. Bowen explicitly stated that the biblical laws on slavery were very similar to the slavery laws of the antebellum South.
A part of my deconstruction was when I realized that in order to understand the Bible u have to go to uni, learn 30 languages and even then we have theological discussions between scholars.
Exactly. Something as important as the notion of God and of personal salvation should be simple. This is the absolute opposite of simplicity. With every dubious argument, passage taken out of context, wrong translation, interpretative variation, manuscript diversity, It's doubt upon doubt upon doubt upon doubt,...
@@nilssturman5258 Haha it's simple, do anything you want but just don't eat the apple 🍎
Just take the NKJV. Read it.
No need for all those excuses.
Btw, now u have to explain the atheists theologies if u don't believe in God. The truth is hidden from those whose hearts are resolutely against the gospel no matter the evidence. For those who have ears to hear. All others need not apply.
Slavery was a cultural and moral norm at that time. The religious writings reflected this. The problems arise when apologists try to twist things because they have to keep within the narrative that the Bible is god inspired instead of literature written by men.
I think I remember some passage where Samuel is really pissed off because Jonathon didn't follow God's instructions to the letter by killing every man, woman and child of some people. If that's god-inspired, how can anybody be shocked by the acceptance of slavery?
Written totally by men
...the way I would put it, @thewb8329, is that "Slavery was a cultural and IM-Moral norm [in ancient Middle-Eastern] time." -- as well was in practically every independently-evolved Culture around the World(*)...usually when one Civilization conquered another -- often at the "Command" of their particular "god".
Since the taking- & keeping of slaves Clearly Violates the Universal "Golden Rule" ("Treat others as you would be Treated"), the 'god' which Commanded/Condoned the Enslavement of others would be an IM-Moral As$#ole.
@@neclark08 Might want to look up the definition of moral. It doesn’t mean to do no harm to others rather what is considered right or wrong by an individual or group or society. In the ancient world slavery wasn’t considered to be a wrong or bad thing but obviously it would suck if you are the slave.
Obviously if you believe the Bible, God would be the biggest mass murderer in the history of humanity. Usually, Christian apologists rationalize this as what applies to humans does not apply to god or it is simply a “mystery “ or that God works in mysterious ways and we are not to question god.
@@2Hot2 Saul not Jonathan
I like Dr Josh’s idea of a game show where you have to name whether a law comes from the Bible or from another ancient code of laws. Kind of makes me want to make a mobile app like that…
Baby Billy's Bible Bonkers 😅
@dogvorbis9072 hahahaha I was just gonna write that
The questions would have all the same answer. They all came from somewhere else and none are from the bible
Reminds me of the game show video from Non Stamp Collector. I'd watch that.
All these episodes should be written and published as books or booklets. There are so much learning and information.
Or you could buy a couple of Bart's books: sorted.
In a perfect world, it would be possible to buy simple, illustrated tracts of about fifteen pages, each one tightly focused on a single topic or idea or concept, said tracts mass-produced, in black and white, using comic-book storytelling, that one might, y'know, distribute to people in an evangelizing sort of way.
Its even part of the 10 commandments:
Ex 20 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, *or his male slave, or his female slave,* or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Another verse is Ex 20 10.
I covet my neighbor’s ass. Less so the sheep and goats.
Is it pro-slavery?
@@peterwallis4288 The Bible prohibits many things. But it commands that slaves obey their masters, and explicitly permits masters to beat their slaves. So it’s fair to say the Bible takes a favorable view of slavery.
didn't slavery end in the west because of Christianity?
@@1bengrubb No. Both abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates pointed to the Bible for support. This goes to show how contradictory the Bible is and how it’s too ambiguous to be a reliable moral guide.
Ownership of daughters has continued into modern christianity. You can see it in the religious marriage ceremony. The father doesn't "sell" his daughter anymore, but he "gives" her to her husband. Basically transfers ownership. That is indicating that he has ownership and the ability to give her to a man to be owned. Most people don't recognize this when they attend weddings. It really gets under my skin. This is also a reason many men get the idea that they own their wives and have the right to control their behavior.
It’s possible there’s an historical connection, but you can’t just assume it offhand without actually having studied the history. Consider that it wasn’t so very long ago in western culture when a man went further than merely “giving” his daughter; he also provided a dowry. In other words, he paid someone to take her off of his hands. This suggests not so much that he owned her, but that he was burdened with her. Why? Because it was assumed that a woman was incapable of providing for herself. Either a father or a husband had to do it.
It all started with Judaism. We should blame them.
@@elizabethgeorge4708 The idea of owning women didn't start with Judaism but they certainly embraced it as did other cultures. Even the Chinese did the same. You can't put it all on Judaism.
@@rhondah1587it’s Universal with all cultures Men being protectors because it is natural
@@mrabdi851 Exactly. Women couldn't take care of themselves, so they needed a man to do so. Their father, then their husband. 'ownership' is one word for it, but doesn't really describe it. Responsibility or stewardship is a btter word.
The fact that a man can sell his daughter in the Biblical era is one reason why modern men and women should feel completely justified in disregarding the admonition that children 'honor their father and mother', and with this the unquestioned authority of the Ten Commandants in general. Children are not property. More to the point, if you hold to the idea that there is a greater order in the universe, then your children may be, in fact, the method through which that order introduces the evolutionary ideas that will propel society forward.
You don’t believe that we should honour the people that nurtured us, fed us, loved us, protected us, sacrificed everything they could for us and asked for nothing in return except our love and respect (ie honour)? Wow! What about our grandparents or great~grandparents who sacrificed their lives and sanity to fight nazis? Would they still sacrifice their lives for such self important, arrogant, narcissistic people that refuse to except that our elders’ sacrifices have earned them the honour that some of us withhold? The future will be lead by leaders who grow up enough to realise that they don’t know everything, and so they will learn to learn from their elders. If we don’t take our forbearers knowledge and expand on it we can never advance! Every generation before this one has contributed to us. If we can’t show our thanks, then we are doomed by our own arrogance. Lest We Forget.
@@sammnew Honor is earned. Parents and ancestors that treat children well, with respect for their innate individuality and spiritual potential, have earned that honor. But what about the parents who abuse their children, exploit then, give them away in loveless. joyless marriages, or try to prevent them from pursuing (for instance) God as they have come to understand Him, Her, or It? The history of manipulative, controlling parents and societies is an ugly one. Children do not exist as mere extensions of their parents' or societies' intentions and wishes. When society itself is sick, children must rebel, must become spiritual heroes, and bring through the ideas that can redeem their society.
@@HPLeft even when a parent has not been great, you should still honour them. If there's actually abuse involved, I believe that should be an exception. However, if the parents had also followed the ten commandments, there would not have been abuse to start with.
@@HPLeft honor is not earned it is lost... certain positions get honor (parents) then it is lost
@@peterwallis4288 Why the ten commandments? Which commandments specifically? None of them say treat children with respect.
Dr. Josh is one of the most amazing indviduals I know. He is smart humble, and let's just say it, easy on the eyes. Dr. Josh is also amazing on the Skylar Fiction Show where he cohosted with me for many years deabting Christian apologist on the bible.
What an excellent conclusion on why this discussion is important. History repeats and those with knowledge of the past makes a big impact
Love Josh's work! He spoke at our Conferenc on Death, Grief and Belief last year. And I've been a Bart fan for about ten years. What a treat to see them together!
Better a Bart fan than a fart ban.
Wonderful to "meet" Josh and to hear his fascinating expertise on this fraught topic! Well done!
Bart & Josh, just excellent - thank you so much.
Great video.
Alice
I agree with Dr.Josh closing remarks. I often see people trying to apply a modern standard to a ancient text or do the opposite. I don't think that would work no matter which direction you try it.
So you are saying God is not omniscient then.
God is not God then; no point in worshiping an idiot then?
When I started as a pastoral assistant in a liberal church 40 years ago, we had some study groups that wanted te read the book of Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian. I bought all necessary exemplars and brought them with me on a sunday on which I led the church service. The result was a congregation that had put this book next to the book of hymns. A good memory. Success with your course!
Can I join your church?
I just have to say Joshua's voice is so smooth and calming, even while talking about such a topic as slavery. He should do podcasts!
He does…Digital Hammurabi
@TeaTrekkie - He does, Dr Ehrman mentions it in the introduction.
Great interview! Love Dr. Josh, he explains things so easily
Another epic crossover. Love Josh Bowen and Dr Ehrman
Exactly my impression
Awesome stuff
Thank you gentlemen for being voices of reason in a world of unreasonable religions.
I hope this finds Drs. Ehrman, Lewis, and Bowen (and the kids) all in good health and enjoying this long hot summer! Cheers!
50:00 Somehow I am reminded of that saying: A zealot is someone who is ready to have others suffer for his faith.
didn't slavery end in the west because of Christianity?
@@1bengrubb Short answer: No.
Long answer: The move into the towns and cities starting in the 17th and 18th century in Europe made serfdom in the villages less enforceable. In the Age of Enlightenment, the idea of Human Dignity came into being, which contradicts the idea of slavery and serfdom. The concept of the Social Contract made it a decision of each individual how to fit into society. Thus, slavery and serfdom were moved to the colonies, far away from Europe. This was also the moment when slavery and racism became intertwined. France abolished slavery after the French Revolution in 1789, the United Kingdom in 1807, and in its colonies in 1823. Most of Europe abolished slavery in 1815, as a result of the Congress of Vienna. Some German states were quite late to the party. Saxony for instance abolished serfdom in 1832. Russia in 1861, and finally the U.S. in the same year.
Yes, the arguments to finally end slavery legally were often brought with a Christian message, but economic factors made slavery unattractive long before.
@@SiqueScarface I had a hunch economics was involved--- but when you say Christianity did not end slavery then mention Age of Enlightenment---that's like saying an Orange is not Orange???? They cannot be separated...I think you proved my point
@@1bengrubb Claiming Christianity and the Age of Enlightenment can not be separated is like claiming the Common Cold and Chickensoup can not be separated, or Tuberculosis and Penicilline are the same.
@@SiqueScarface but the enlightenment came out of Christian Europe right?? Every thinker involved was raised in the church and taught the morality of the Bible. It did not come from India or China or the Romans.
Dr. Josh is a welcome addition to the podcast!!! Great episode, gentlemen!!
WONDERFUL! This was a very high level discussion and is much appreciated. Nice to meet Megan's husband too! Thanks to both of you.
I love history and I love historical interpretations of ancient texts. They can tell us a lot about how people lived thousands of years ago, which problems they faced and what they believed. It always amazes me how people can still believe today that the Bible is anything else than a man made historical/fictional account.
You'll enjoy historyforatheists then.
Seeing all the invaluable wisdom in the Bible, it amazes me how some people are unable to appreciate it in all of its sophistication and complexity.
Obviously it was written by men but "fiction" is not one of the genres of the texts. No scholar worth their salt would say such a thing
@@paradisecityX0in order to believe in gods or supernatural natural entities you need to have imagination. So it is a sort of fiction, even though the people really believed in that fiction.
@sebastiantorker4930 Without Imagination, life is dead.
Nah, gender ideology is fiction. Divine intuition is very basic in human beings and is one of the many things that separate us from all other animals
@@paradisecityX0I agree, life is dead without imagination. But still, gods and supernatural entities are not real characters. They are sth that is invented or untrue and hence fiction. When historians read ancient texts like the Bible they need to assess which elements are real and which are fiction. Some Egyptian gods were pharaohs and hence real. The god of Abraham is purely a fictional character. Even Abraham and Moses might not have existed at all.
@Rusty-Shackleford69 Umm that's Carlos to you, Karen
CALLER: You wouldn’t believe the ways that Christians try to justify this.
MATT DILLAHUNTY: Oh, I can believe it.
MD no longer has credibility since he joined the trans cult.
@bugsby4663 ???
At 38:00, how is Bart Ehrman reading that Paul wanted Philemon to allow Onesimus to serve him, presumably as a slave? Paul calls Onesimus his "son" and as "brother." How does that square with the sense of owning another person? What translation is Ehrman reading from?
“year of living biblically” is a great book i read it back in high school would recommend/10
Dr. Ehrman, I love this podcast. The only thing i'd change would be the quality of your webcam.
Lucky for use the video isn't really the point of the interview, just the words exchanged :-)
@@FernLovebond Great example of a throw away comment. 👍🏻 I'm curious, what about my critisims complelled you to comment?
This podcast is the highlight of my Tuesdays!
Very much appreciate you using the term "Agnostic Atheist" Bart. It seems to me to be the only complete way to describe our position, and it does much to shut down those who would mischaracterize most atheists.
Philemon is very short. Verses 15 and 16 has Paul clearly asking Onesimus to make Philemon no longer a slave. I’ve looked this up in literal and side-by-side Greek English translations, and that is not ambiguous. In 1 Timothy vs 10 it lists slavery - also translated as men stealing - in a list of things that Paul tells us is incompatible with the Christianity. In the commands in Exodus it lists man-stealing and holding a stolen person, both as crimes punishable by death. Slavery is not possible without stealing someone and allowing someone to hold that person. Also the Bible is a book of history, within which people do bad things. Just as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is not her endorsement of making monsters, the fact that people in the Bible do bad things, these aren’t written as endorsements - and it is utterly bizarre and illogical to make that assertion. Most people in the Bible are simply shown as they were. That’s the point. Humanity is profoundly fallen. That the Scripture points out humanity is fallen is not an endorsement of our doing wrong.
We need a super deep dive so Dr. Ehrman can respond to all the major apologetics on biblical slavery! Matt Dillahunty has responded to all of them in debates and calls, with logic and biblical knowledge, but Ehrman would bring a deeper understanding of the history, language, theology, culture, etc.
In ancient Israel slavery was basically an advance method of handling unpaid debt.
Nobody was permitted to keep a fellow Israelite as "slave" for more than seven years (Leviticus 25:35-55) At that point debt was annulled.
If one beat or harmed a slave, he had to be set free (Exodus 21:26)
If one came across an escaped slave, one was not supposed to return him (Deuteronomy 22:28).
You going to ignore the other passages about slavery ? Or the fact that what you mentioned is only applied to one ethnicity and only men?
For the less fortunate that were not born in the ethnicity of the gods favorite people , were considered property that you can own forever, beat mercilessly unless they die within a couple of days, you could buy women as sexslaves. The bible makes it very clear that this is your property and it distinguishes the ”intentured servitudes” apologists want to claim they are to what is chattel slavery.
Nah
Whoop whoop here we go!
What a great episode. Thank you both!
What about the Potion that the priest gives the woman as a test? That is an abortifacient. It was not particularly reliable, and that is where "god" came in, but it was still used to abort the fetus. Those ingredients listed are used in other instances as abortifacients too.
love potion number 9
Lost me at the bow tie, but picked me back up with the arguments and evidence.
This interview tickles me based on our Clubhouse conversations over the past week. Lol
One of the best episodes. Josh is a wealth of information on ancient law and I will be subscribing to his podcast. On a side note, after watching Megan for the last few years I just assumed her husband would be an intellectual with the looks of an actor. Looks like I was right.
A relative recently made a comment about the Florida GOP trying to rewrite black history. He made a comment that there were slaves and servants in the Bible. I thought wow, he’s trying to justify slavery. It still amazes me how much white supremacy there is. We can thank Trump and MAGA for White People Party for making it more acceptable to be a racist. This is one of the main reason I don’t consider Christianity and how it’s practiced now to be something I want to participate in.
Dr. Josh and Dr. Bart, what an enjoyable episode. This was fantastic.
Around 48 minutes in, the way I've heard evangelicals skirt around the clothing laws vs sex laws is that sex laws are about "morals" so they don't go away, but the others were fulfilled through Jesus. It's an excuse for ignoring inconvenient commands by using a differentiation that the Bible writers didn't mention. And yet the concept of selling ones daughter is certainly a moral issue, but that isn't given the same treatment.
What do the commandments have to do with Christianity though?
As crazy as it sounds even in the rich USA these days, slave labor continues on. "More than 400,000 people may be living in “modern slavery” in the US, a condition of servitude broadly defined in a new study as forced and state-imposed labor, sexual servitude and forced marriage" .
Always enjoy the MJ podcasts, but this was a particulary enthralling episode. Thank you, Bart and Josh.
Apologists fiddling with and cherry picking the bible to make it sound "better". Yeh, what about the commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness". Damned hypocrisy!
At minute 23:00 Joshua conflates the punishment in the Old Testement with the Hamurabi code. It is the Cuneiform codes that allow the punishment for certain crimes to include an innocent 3rd party such as the child of the perpetrator to be put to death. The Old Testement is set apart in this way, that the guilty party is held liable not his family members.
This is my heaven right here! Dr Josh & Dr Ehrman. Give thanks to the TH-cam gods
We generally speak of slavery as the burden and constraints of required work. I've encounter slaves while living near the Sahara. What struck me about slaves is the loss of their essential humanity. Their souls were totally repressed, gone. They were hollowed out human beings. That condition is the worst I've ever encountered.
Slavery takes away one's soul. The loss of one's independence, choice, self-protection from cruelty, pales when one's soul is stolen.
This gives the Living Dead a very real context
Dr. Josh is an amazing person and a very intelligent scholar. As a young adult, he is an example for me. Get the new book and support his work!
Misplaced modifier?
@@crede9427 Where should it be?
Good to see Dr Josh. I have the second edition of the slavery book on pre-order.
I have both volumes! Awesome stuff.
Slavery by salvation by Dale Martin is a great book on slavery in Paul
Josh was great. Have him on regularly.
Debt slavery to chattel slavery conversion was the reason why indentured servitude was outlawed in the US and other countries, as that same practice was happening in relatively modern times. The masters of the indentured servants would tack on food and housing and clothing and interest and other costs to the point where the servant could never pay down their debt, but still calling them servants rather than slaves in order to skirt anti-slavery laws.
Wow, I am impressed by and very grateful for the information provided by Dr. Bowen and Dr. Ehrman. Having completed my undergraduate & master's degree studies back in the 1980s, it was far more difficult to gain access to the incites of scollars such as Bart and Joshua. Thank you both for sharing your expertise.
Great discussion. Different culture has different value system, sometimes slavery comes with caste system in other cultures and beliefs.
One of the better segments. We need more Josh.
Great episode! I first saw Dr. Bowen on MythVision and was immediately impressed.
Fantastic guest. He hit on a dangerous topic slouching toward you know where we should be aware of. Baby steps indeed…in red shoes. Thank you guys.
“I spend a lot of time on social media debating religious people”
My man
I would love if Bart Ehrman did a video discussion with Martin Schwartz who is one of the leading experts on the Avesta which is the Zoroastrian equivalent of the Bible and talk about the Zoroastrian influence on the New Testament.
Excellent. Just bought all of Josh’s books and subscribed.
This episode was amazing! Thank you for pointing out how absurd the apologists answers are trying to whitewash or justify slavery. I work in human rights and slavery is considered a jus cogens norm - an absolutely fundamental human right where no justification for derogation is permitted.
there is a new form of slavery, the chattel now take care of themselves - the slavemasters are hidden
Bart and Josh are not accurately presenting"apologist" views. They're just throwing up the extreme of how they perceived what they heard. No apologist justifies slavery in the bible they show how the progression of morality in the bible ended slavery leading to your jus cogens norm.
@@1bengrubb Jus cogens means an action is never permitted. So if God says in the old testament where slaves are to come from or how slaves are to be treated then that would be a violation of a non-derogable fundamental human right. There's no progression of morality with these fundamental human rights because a few basic things like slavery and genocide are always and have always been wrong.
@@erasmusflattery9799 well in this particular conversation we are referring to 3000 year old document from a different culture. We can see this evolution of society. Your comment about fundamental human rights is what we are watching evolve or progress here.
@@1bengrubb You're right that modern human rights is a recent development. For example, the word genocide didn't even exist until it was created by Raphael Lemkin in 1944. But genocide of course happened before a word existed for it and it was wrong in the past even when there was no technical crime of genocide. The same is true with slavery. To own a human being as property violates all concepts of human dignity. Even the most notorious countries today that use slave labor such as North Korea deny it because it is a universally recognized wrong.
I have 2 questions for you because I'm honestly curious. First, do you believe that God permitted slavery in the old testament? And if so, when did God stop permitting slavery?
very good episode. seeing an instances where two of your favorite scholars actually meet face-to-face (well.. screen-to-screen in this case I guess) is surprisingly rare
Dr. Joshua Bowtie
God, I wish we have an honest scholar like you for the Islam world and history.
We get to see Josh. Nice😊
Props for this discussion: I've learned a great deal on several fundamental issues.
This does a good job of answering the two questions I hoped it would answer: (1) how was slavery in "Bible World" like and unlike that in the pre-1860 USA? (2) what general attitude does the Bible have about slavery?
Bart made a slight inaccuracy about the NRSVUE. They use the word slave when talking about literal slavery (including the parables) but do translate it as servant when used more figuratively, like Paul calling himself slave of Christ. That's not to say the criticism is wrong but just to clarify the exact context.
Nietsche would say that Christianity introduced “Slave Morality” which made slavery immoral. John Brown, who was a fanatical Christian, would have essentially agreed with Nietsche. Similarly, the USA didn’t ban slavery, but the liberal ideology which the USA was founded on made it inevitable that slavery would be banned.
Josh Bowen and Bart Ehrman together. What is not to love.
I am always profoundly troubled by Christians who say " oh that part of the bible should be taken as a product of ancient times and doesn't apply now" but another ancient babbling is relevant"
Thanks so much
Message for Megan: we approve Josh! 😄 great episode btw :)
Message begins after 16 minutes into the video
Please do an episode on what, if anything, the Bible says about abortion! Thanks.
Numbers chapter 5
@volhosis3784 - The men also had a brief discussion about it.
It's so interesting to hear what people fear and the kind of speech they call "dangerous"
Although slavery was not condemned by the Bible, arguably the logic of Paul’s position, that all people have souls worthy of being saved/redeemed etc. leads inexorably to egalitarian outcomes. If souls are of equal/infinite value then the person arguing that persons possessing souls ought to be treated differently from one another is pushing uphill.
I have read the book Bart mentioned. It is called The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs. He attempts to follow the 613 laws and It is quite funny especially when he is tending his sheep in Manhattan.
55:21 is so powerful. Thanks for this. Unfortunately I have heard this as a justification.
didn't slavery end in the west because of Christianity?
@@1bengrubb - Apologist alert!
saw the Ishtar Gate etc in the Pergammon Museum -- East Berlin, Summer 1989
As the descent of ancestors who enslaved people and passed them along with livestock and machinery in their still extant wills, I have given slavery a lot of thought. I now imagine that my ancestors lived in fear, not just of an uprising, but also of loss of their free labor force and the pressure peers who insisted on perpetuating the institution. No, I’m not saying their lives were as bad as that of the people they used. I am saying that slavery was a two way street in which both master and slave were tied to each other in an eternal dance that neither could escape. Like the cop who cuffs himself to his detainee, both are in bondage; neither a free agents. It was an insidious system
Wow. Wonderful podcast. Thank you.
Great conversation and insights.
You should have had Josh do his Kent impression. It's pretty good.
Thanks for this. I've often wondered about these matters
Even today's secular justice system umderstands that a person cannot be imprisoned for civil debt
This is a fascinating subject for many reasons, it does not challenge my faith in God. I am a member of the Baha’i Faith, which is the newest monotheistic religion of the Abrahamic tradition, but it specifically forbids slavery, and forbids holy war, affirms the equality of men and women, and that religions teachings must not conflict with proven scientific facts. If we are limited to the scriptures found in the Bible and Quran, then yes that would challenge my faith, but God’s plan for mankind is to move beyond that and the time for that is now. Jesus said “when I was a child I thought as a child”. That shows we must move forward and mature as a species. With the teachings of Baha’u’llah, we can have complete faith in God and move forward, not be held back by obsolete practices like slavery, racism, sexism, animal sacrifice or stone tools.
If there is no punishment or reward after one dies nothing was done to punish Hitlers. Sad!
It’s funny I saw the title and thought “oh it would be great if he did this one with Dr Josh”
Josh's bowtie is so adorable ☺️
The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs for those curious.
Excellent as always
Thank you for the conversation. I am an evangelical and I am going to carry my own bias into the topic, but I think it's necessary due to the bias of the conversation. Not that it's bad, it's just normal. But, as the devils advocate, I think we can do better. If anyone wants to have an intelligent debate about this, please read the entire text.
So here's a few things to think about regarding the differences between Jewish slavery and American slavery. And I think we need to start with Isreals slavery in Egypt. Remember, the Jews were slaved themselves about 50 days prior to the laws on slavery being codified.
What we know of the Jewish slaves is 1) they owned property in Egypt. When God sent the plague on the cattle the text clearly states that the cattle of the Jews were unharmed. Right away, American slaves owned nothing. 2) We know Jewish slaves owned homes due to the text regarding the plague of darkness. American slaves did not. 3) We know Jewish slaves had organized leaders. We know this because Pharaoh beat the leaders of the Jews when the people didn't perform. American slaves had zero leadership. 4) We know Jewish slaves owned there own religion. We know this because that's the excuse they used to be set free. We have to sacrifice to our God. American slaves did not. So right there we see the background in which the Jews where freed.
Now, there's the argument of, "Well that's how the Egyptians treated their slaves, not necessarily how Isreal treated it's slaves." Which is fair. However, there's a line that's constantly repeated throughout the law giving speech. It basically said, "When dealing with slaves or foreigners, REMEMBER how you felt as a slave and foreigner in Egypt." The idea being that Isreals handling of slaves should be done against the backdrop of remembering that they were slaves once. This law was given less than 2 months after Jewish deliverance. That in and of itself is a HUGE difference in the mentality of Biblical slavery and American slavery.
Last major difference. Slaves got a day off every week. No one, not even slaves, could work on the Sabbath. They had to rest. That differed from all other slaves in that time frame, AND from American slavery as it is today. These are huge differences. Next thread, we can discuss "selling a daughter" and debt slavery.
Let's discuss the whole "selling off the daughter" concept. We also have to put some background into this. Your own reaction of shock and disbelief actually validates this practice AT THAT TIME. I emphasis this because we have a far more complex government system now, with safety guards that protect woman, so this practice is not needed now.
The reason you can't believe this is because you would NEVER sell your daughter as a slave. I wouldn't either. However, we can be reasonably assured that if something happens to us our daughters will still have safety guards and opportunities within society in order to care for themselves. Not so back then.
During this time the economy of the world was agricultural by nature. Your opportunities in life was very dependent on how strong you were. If you were strong and could manage plowing your field with 2 oxen instead of 1, you had a leg up on the competition. If you were weak physically, well, you struggled. If a father died and only had a daughter, she had zero opportunities outside of planting a garden or going into prostitution. There are some women who can work a plow, but very few aspire too, or can effectively.
So now, you and I have our daughters. And there might be 20 potential suitors in our little village. We can could do the modern thing and let our daughters marry for love, but as we see in today's society, 50% of love based marriage ends in divorce. And as stated, a divorced woman was considered tainted by another man, so then she may have 5 suitors who may want to marry a divorced woman. And most likely, those 5 suitors would be the bottom of the barrel who can't get a woman to fall in love with them.
So as a father, in a situation where my daughter has almost zero future in an agricultural society, I have to decide how I'm going to give her the best shot at survival without me. So what do I do? I require a dowry from the potential suitor. The dowry does a few things:
1) It shows the father how well the suitor can take care of my daughter
2) It makes the suitor make an up front investment that shows his commitment.
3) It gives the father some insurance in case the marriage fails. The daughter would come back to live with the father if the marriage failed, and the dowry collected up front would help support her.
So what does this have to do with selling a daughter into "slavery".
Now, let's say we are in this same village of 100 people or less. And I need a loan. Well, obviously I'm not going to the town bully for a loan, I'm going to go with a friend I know. Remember, there's no banks, or fiot currency, etc. If my friend gives me a loan and I can't repay, he loses his money. So his only protection is he can force me to work off my loan in 6 years. Which is also why I'm going to pick the nicest guy I know to borrow money from. If I can't repay it, I kinda want a say in whom my slave owner is.
So I take the loan, and sure enough I can't repay it. My buddy comes to me and says, "man, I like you, but I can't afford to lose that money. I'm going to need you to work for me until it's paid back." Depending on the circumstance, I might say, "You know what, your boy kinda likes my daughter. You guys have a good family, and we've been friends for a while. Would you be open you having your son marry my daughter and we can use the balance on the loan as the dowry?"
That is the exact context behind this law. It's not, "Hey my daughter is nothing but an animal to me, so what can you give me for her?" That's the lie the feminist use. It's, "Hey, my daughter has a slim chance in making it on her own in a agricultural society. So I'm not going to let her marry just anyone. How serious are you about taking care of her?"
Now, let's ask the real question... Is slavery bad?
WHAT!?! YOU ARROGANT PIECE OF TRASH! HOW CAN YOU EVEN SAY THAT! NO ONE SHOULD EVER WORK FOR SOMEONE FORCEFULLY!
That's probably what everyone is saying, but let's dive into it anyways.
1) Who has a better life, a well treated woman who was "sold" by her father to a good family, OR the single mother of 4 who works 3 jobs and never sees her kids?
2) What is the difference between debt bongage of ancient times, and garnished wages today?
3) What is the difference between paying a dowry then, and losing half of what you own in a divorce now?
4) What's the difference between being a slave then, and having to work a job you hate now just to pay your bills? Basically, working to barely live, the same way a slave then worked to barely live.
5) If you don't believe in God, or even if you aren't sure there is a God, what authority do you have to tell someone else that owning a slave is wrong? Because you don't "feel" it's right? Well, who died to make your feelings God? Slave owners felt owning slaves was right. Now what? If we are just animals reacting to our DNA, isn't it normal for stronger alphas to dominate the weaker betas in the animal kingdom? If there's no God, than the slave owner is actually a more honest animal than you are. They are responding to natural instinct. You to a higher one. But that higher instinct is an abstract, like a belief in God, and if you can't believe in God because He is abstract, than how can you believe in any abstract idea and still be honest with yourself?
No human being should ever be held against their will unless they've committed some sort of horrible crime.
I have problems with apologists who are not capable to accept biblical realities This weakens their stance in the eye of any sensible person.
The problem with whitewashing biblical slavery is that scripture becomes misleading😢
As far as I am aware, only the NIV translates the "ordeal of bitter waters" (i.e. the test for a wife's adultery) in a way that would clearly indicate that any potential pregnancy is aborted. According the NASB, the curse put upon a failing wife is that "her belly will swell up and her thigh will shrivel" (Numbers 5:27, NASB).
I can't read Hebrew, so I don't know what's the better translation, or if the version in this translation is a poetic way of describing an abortion. But it at least seems unclear that it describes an abortion in the majority of English translations.
Do a bit of digging and you'll find that "thigh" is a euphemism for the fetus.
@@Kyeudo I'm not sure if that's true. It might be a euphemism for "womb", but I still think the passage is unclear on whether it definitely kills the baby or simply renders the woman barren.
Having read more on this topic after making the comment, I have been persueded that even if it does not always entail an abortion, the OT doesn't care about checking whether women to be excuted (being caught in adultery, for example) are pregnant or no.
@@gurigura4457 Aron Ra's covered it several times in some of his talks and videos. I've watched too many, though, to give you a more specific citation at the moment.
@@gurigura4457yes, I think the fairest reading is that the procedure doesn't care if the woman is pregnant or not (and thigh is indeed a euphemism for the womb).
However, what might cause the man to become suspicious? How many women would be put through the ordeal because their men thought they had become pregnant through another man? When the realities around the procedure are considered it becomes inescapable that the procedure would lead to some abortions
They are such an awesome couple.
1. Evangelicals still treat women like their only value is between their legs.
2. My great great grandmother was an abolitionist and it resulted in her being an agnostic atheist because she refused to believe any God that allowed slavery was a good God or that there was no God and it was the work of evil men.
Pair!
{:o:O:}
Looks like he wanted the man freed to me -- "no longer as a slave."
"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever- no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
"So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. "
If he was a debt slave, "charge it to me" reads like a direct appeal to cut the man free.