@@klumpytheklown3798 sorry for the delay. But do you mind elaborating on that point? Because to accuse and generalizing entire category of people and movement like that seems pretty biased and reductionistic.
Slavery by its very nature demands hypocrisy (amongst other things). Aristotle said "Slaves are Slaves by nature." Yet he was perfectly aware that Diogenes had been a slave, that there were Athenian citizens who had become slaves (e.g., captured by pirates and sold in Carthage).
But you're talking about a book that's supposed to be inspired word of God, who is defined as eternal, perfect, and unchanging throughout all of the human perception of the scale of time. So why would something be moral according to such a God centuries ago and not moral today? Don't you know people get the idea that it's still okay or even necessary to do terrible things because the Bible says it is (for example, an unapologetic wife beater I saw on Maury once used the Bible's passages about women to justify treating his wife as property)? People aren't looking at it and saying "this was a reflection of it's time" the way we might talk about Shakespeare or Kipling. This is presented as an infallible document on which all human laws and morality must be based.
Fully agreed. It’s strange to conveniently turn this supposed omnipotent and omniscient god into an entity so powerless that it has to conform to the norms and values of an ancient people. If it were a poweful god, it would actually tell the people what is moral and what isn’t, regardless of the popular opinions of the time.
Some people just doesn’t have what it takes to understand these passages. Those that do not know God do not understand them, because it was not written for them.
Your content and presentation is getting better and more easily understood. Dr.Josh and Megan should be congratulated for their information into Near Eastern religions and beliefs.
This is your sexiest editing job yet. GREAT JOB on the visual presentation. It so perfectly fits with the verbal presentation. You folks get better all the time and it's so fun to be here already, the future of your content will be quite grand.
15 "You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16, ESV)
Fantastic! I always enjoy a new upload. I particularly enjoyed the quotes from other people towards the end of the video, allowing us, the audience, to hear other voices on the matter. Thank you for your hard work!
I loved your debunking of the false dichotomy whereby everything is either loving and good or hateful and bad. You can be a loving, caring slave owner if there is no doubt in your mind, not even in the darkest depths, that slave owning is correct and moral, and that you are doing the best that you can for your family, community and slaves. It is immoral, but not necessarily hateful, to have well treated slaves even though you understand that they should really be free. There are lots of alternatives apart from love and hate. The message about the Bible that we should defend is that no book, whoever wrote it and whatever it says, can be true and moral through the ages. That is, unless the book miraculously changes with the times, and gives the same message to each reader, self-adapting the words and the meanings and the metaphors so every reader will get the same message.
I take it what you say can be applied to that which you just wrote.. So in essence why did you even bother? Commandments are structural hierarchy for the nation.. their are levels too it and if you let weak chains in the structure will collapse.. this why you have too show willingness to our ways to be accepted among us too keep the strength of the nation together you are quite simply either apart of your own ruling nations government or among someone else... us israelites are currently among other nations as we was exiled in 586bc ======================= for those of you that are the Lord gods flock (lions on the land).. i'll exodus us from their corrupt nations and bring us back under his rule over us (separated) facebook.com/groups/564121650373359/ (virtual meeting place) the best way to describe the UK/US/EU/ISRAHELL (iniquity nations). is that it is a ship (corporation) the establishment are the crew officials (iniquity spirits) and the voters (human employees/slaves) are its rowers.. the rowers that play up end up getting put in the holding cell (jail time) and the non-voters (rebels) are the rats scurrying around on their ship getting exterminated where they can get them I'm the man going around this corporate ship looking to take those worthy enough (equitable spirits) off of that ship and sail our own righteous ship instead this righteous ship (to which the lord will give us) will sail with our Lord god watching over us and policing ourselves as we should in his eyes (todays writings are not originals but they do still contain some top notch commandments that i hands down before the Lord agree with) not only from within the ship.. but from outside vessels looking to sink our ship or even capture it (all within a motionless enclosed pressured level plane world) however instead of it being called a ship... it'll be a kingdom on the land surrounded by nations (other vessels) th-cam.com/video/AzbcEus1Mbs/w-d-xo.html proverbs 14 2Whoever walks in uprightness fears the LORD, but he who is devious in his ways despises him. 11The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish. 28In a multitude of people is the glory of a king, but without people a prince is ruined. May the Lord god bless those of us (house of israel) and not all
@@meta4zs Would you mind expanding on this argument, that is so lacking in actual argumentation that it is no argument at all? I will help you make an argument: start with explaining how a book that is full of internal contradictions can be the final moral authority, or the final word, on anything, and you will be a very, very little bit closer to an actual argument.
Great video Dr. Josh .... the issue is often in these Christian vs atheist debates Christians will use moral/cultural relativism against the skeptic all the while ignoring the relativism in the case of biblical slavery and claim a nebulous higher unchanging form of morality.
Another way to explain the subjunctive in other languages is to say that the “If” is conjugated in the verb. So the English translation “If you do X” is sufficient, because If is all we need in English to convey the meaning.
Another example of the use of a term meaning forever nowadays for something that wouldn't actually be forever is in Portuguese, the expression used for life sentence in prison is "prisão perpétua", even if it is obvious that no one keep the corpse in the prison after the person died.
Is it possible that a soldier waiting a month with his captive wife-to-be would be to see if she has a period during that time? The dissatisfaction could be if she doesn't and she is pregnant.
I'd also say that its so it can be deemed if she is also accepting towards the coming arrangement decided by the man.. that possibly also just killed her fella... the only time women and children are killed is when the land is being taken as our inheritance, in which everything and everyone is put too slaughter. ethnic cleansing 101 ======================== for those of you that are the Lord gods flock (lions on the land).. i'll exodus us from their corrupt nations and bring us back under his rule over us (separated) facebook.com/groups/564121650373359/ (virtual meeting place) the best way to describe the UK/US/EU/ISRAHELL (iniquity nations). is that it is a ship (corporation) the establishment are the crew officials (iniquity spirits) and the voters (human employees/slaves) are its rowers.. the rowers that play up end up getting put in the holding cell (jail time) and the non-voters (rebels) are the rats scurrying around on their ship getting exterminated where they can get them I'm the man going around this corporate ship looking to take those worthy enough (equitable spirits) off of that ship and sail our own righteous ship instead this righteous ship (to which the lord will give us) will sail with our Lord god watching over us and policing ourselves as we should in his eyes (todays writings are not originals but they do still contain some top notch commandments that i hands down before the Lord agree with) not only from within the ship.. but from outside vessels looking to sink our ship or even capture it (all within a motionless enclosed pressured level plane world) however instead of it being called a ship... it'll be a kingdom on the land surrounded by nations (other vessels) th-cam.com/video/AzbcEus1Mbs/w-d-xo.html proverbs 14 2Whoever walks in uprightness fears the LORD, but he who is devious in his ways despises him. 11The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish. 28In a multitude of people is the glory of a king, but without people a prince is ruined. May the Lord god bless those of us (house of israel) and not all
To me judging the past by our morals is not about condemning+ them its about learning from the past and what we are going to advocate for future laws. For example seeing slavery as evil and what has been done to slaves. Teaches us the evils of slavery without having to enslaved anyone to figure this out. That we see the evils of slavery we then can push for liberty and liberation of those who are enslaved.
Sorry guys I cant keep up. I'm confused. I understand what he means of you have to keep old ways in the old days. And it sounds wrong in the modern day. But I still dont understand what a slave was back in the old days? Your daughter is a female slave what does that mean in modern day?
Josh actually just released a book on Old Testament slavery that may be a little clearer :) www.amazon.com/Did-Old-Testament-Endorse-Slavery/dp/1734358637/ref=sr_1_2?crid=4OA24RFCFYTN&keywords=did+the+old+testament+endorse+slavery&qid=1584811873&sprefix=did+the+old%2Caps%2C171&sr=8-2&swrs=9CD2D9F186DD2518860888EAF05422D4
"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks-those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest." Friedrich Nietzsche
There are some behaviors which are ALWAYS immoral. It doesn't matter when you lived, murder and theft are immoral. There is a difference between morality and "acceptability". Slavery may have been acceptable but not moral, in the same way eating another human being is never moral but may be acceptable if it saves other lives
As always, an excellent presentation. I must say, however, that the whole discussion around slavery in the Bible is missing the point. Other than a handful of scholars, nobody really cares about what the Bible says. In the modern world, no one is going to sell their children into slavery and quote these passages for justification. The real question is "how should the Bible be interpreted?" If a person takes a fundamentalist position, then he is forced into explaining away all sorts of unacceptable behavior which the Bible clearly condones.
Unfortunately the fundamentalists have no problem explaining away all the unacceptable stuff - or just ignoring it. The tragic significance is that the USA dominates world politics, and biblical literalism dominates the USA. If policy is based on a biblical starting point , then we end up with climate change denial, curbing of sexual and reproductive rights, and other lesser problems. So discussions like this need to happen so that reliance on the Bible as a basis for making important decisions can be challenged, and hopefully consigned to history.
I mostly see slavery in the Bible being brought up in discussions about the moral superiority or absolute moral authority of the Bible. Both are undermined by many of the laws or orders given by god, including laws regarding slavery.
IMO there's no such things as fundamentalism and fundamentalist though, because they are just later invented terms that were brought up when societies already evolved past the original world view that was used when these religions first appeared. We knew these stuffs weren't true or weren't able to keep up with the societal changes, but people just couldn't let go for various reasons.
@@Napoleonic_S You just defined Fundamentalism. "Fundamentalism is the belief in the original form of a religion or theory, without accepting any later ideas." Do you not believe in antiquity or the middle ages, because they are terms that were assigned later. Most abstract concepts are.
@@carpediem5232 Yeah but from within the context of the religions themselves, that later invented term doesn't exist, fundamentalism arose from external context and view toward the religions.
Digital Hammurabi, not only are these informative, you allow for nuance. And I especially love your intro! It must be so hard, knowing how hard our own language is, to know how the writers meant things. To me, it is just further proof that these books were just basics for establishing governance of an increasing population. And done so, with the norms of their times. This, to me, shows that no god had anything to do with these books. Certainly not any form of god that people think of today. 💓✌👍👍
Well done video on a difficult subject. 6:47 "...there will not be an answer". Could the reason for this be that in the ancient world, most slaves were foreigners captured in battle, and thus likely not to be fluent in the language of the master?
It seems unlikely that the laws followed by ancient Judeans/Isrealites never changed over the centuries during which the Old Testament texts were written. Legal changes would naturally occur in any society, even one that was not occupied by numerous conquerers who were able to impose their own laws. Thus I would expect inconsistencies when comparing any of these "snapshots" of ancient Law. Imagine if researchers in 3000 CE looked back on an old civilization called "the U.S. of A" and asked if slavery was legal there based on a handful of documents, dating, say to 1780, 1820, 1880 and 2000.
Im loving your work! I am trying to make an RPG videogame based on history and mythology of the world... And i need to take onto consideration a few things... What i am trying to find about right now is if there was something similar to a prison at the time, and what types of punishments were common in history as in mythology too... The idea is to make the game just for adults, and try to show it in as close to the brutality of their reality and myths as possible, is there any sources you could tell me about so i can do my research? Myths are pretty easy to come by, but i havent find anything about how criminals were treated in general, just things that "should pay x money" or "should be killed" but not much about how they got to confirm or dwny if the guy is guilty and things like that
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT owning another person is okay. Is the Bible not the word of “god?” This is why I don’t understand the Bible Ephesians 6:5 NLT Numbers 31:17-18 Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV Leviticus 15: 19-20 Leviticus 19:19 Leviticus 19:27 Leviticus 15: 19-20 Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Numbers 31:17-18
I hate to be the nit picker out of all the congratulations in the comments, but at the 29:22 mark, the word in the slide is spelled "teh" not "the," in any case, great presentation overall, definitely will share this with anyone who is interested.
It seems to me a bit of an obfuscation to classify finding biblical slavery to be immoral as something we come to with modern sensibilities. If one were to have asked the slaves taken by the Israelites from the surrounding nations, I am quite certain they had issues with the justness of slavery, as indeed the Israelites and Yahweh did when His People were enslaved in Egypt.
From a European point of view, spanking one's children as an example of something that is still legal and accepted by society today feels rather weird. In Sweden it is illegal since 1979. Currently the other European countries are gradually following this example, e.g. Germany since 2000 and France (after a decade of deliberations and in a compromise form) since 2019.
The Nelson quote at about 30:00 seems inaccurate inasmuch as there is a biblical law allowing married space men to leave. But if they want to keep their family, they have to remain a slave. In that case, the master/slave bond has precedence over the marital bond.
If you are referring to when he spoke of the Greek, it is because he was referring to the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the OT. Pardon me if I misunderstood your question.
In the old Hebrew culture, where there were clearly rules for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, there must have been a lot of "show me your dick" moments. How primitive they were.
@@hansholbein1047 It's primitive because an all-wise being wouldn't care about skin on dicks. He could think of something better & less pervy/creepy. Your god is a creep is basically what I'm saying, and more fool you that you worship such a pervert.
I've heard your thoughts on the comparison of slavery in the Hebrew Bible & slave laws in Virginia but the atrocities preformed by American chattel slavery Master were not committed in the Hebraic texts
When you were talking about the variety of ways that language can be used and you have the example "i am going to the store", what i thought you were going to say was that this is present tense but it is often used as a statement of intent. There is so much subtlety in language that you skipped right over this one while making another point from the same example.
1 Corinthians 14:33 King James Version (KJV) 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. LOL, yeah right!
Very nice... say Josh, is there any way you could help bring skylar's streaming presentation into the 21st century? He can't put his meager contributions towards a new camera/mic and a green screen? It would increase his subs and creds without a doubt.
Great example with spanking. Actually in my country it's already illegal to spank a child, whereas only 20 years ago, even though spanking was considered socially unacceptable, it was unthinkable it would become a matter of law. And only 30 years ago spanking wasn't even considered socially and morally unacceptable. We're talking only several decades here and with the Old Testament it's about several millennia. At any rate, these objections only work as an argument against the Bible being the inerrant word of God. Awesome content, as usual!
@@paradisecityX0 The Bible is not inerrant and it is clearly not the word of God, but the word of generations of humans. I don't understand what Jesus has to do with any of this. If he even existed as an actual person and not a composite character, he never wrote down anything.
@@greggor07 That was my point; the bible is not the Word of God, Jesus was (if he was who he said he was). Although it can be debated whether it was inspired or not. He existed, there's no "if" about it. Buddha, Alexander, and Hannibal never wrote down anything either.
@@paradisecityX0 I don't think you can say that Jesus existed and there's no if about it. That's quite a bold claim given such extremely poor evidence. The independent evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is far more ample, I'm not sure about Buddha. As for the Bible being divinely inspired...if that were the case even in the slightest, if it were inspired by an omniscient being, it wouldn't be so evidently culturally influenced and dependent on historical context.
@@greggor07 Actually l can say that. According to 99% of scholars and historians best qualified to make that assessment say it's not even up for debate. historyforatheists.com Really? How do you know it wouldn't? Do you suppose it would cater to our 21st century sensibilities?
Beating your kids is always beating your kids. People who think it might’ve been OK or was in some sort of moral context have never been beaten. I can assure you it doesn’t matter what century are living in beating your child is immoral. I’m sure they were many many many many parents who never touched thier children and never owned a slave both of these things are immoral and would’ve been immoral then.
If god is omnipotent and all seeing, why would he allow slavery in the first place if it was immoral. Instead of condemning it as immoral, which he would know it would all be abolished one day, he sets out rules and guideline for what to do with them. Not the kind of god I want to follow
So aion and olam can mean both age or eternal depending on context ? Also I got a quick question in the bible they mention a 1000 year reign of christ until death is supposedly defeated and this gets into the question couldn't the eternal life part according to the text start after death is abolished at the end of the 1000 reign ? The reason I ask this is not because I buy any of it it's simply because you can not have an eternal life if death is still a thing. This is unless death applies to some and not other's. The fact is more literal translations in those passages like young's literal and concordant literal has age lasting life and age lasting correction. The whole idea of a punishment to correct someone being eternal is logically inconsistent.
Production values that are elegantly sophisticated... check! Scholarship that combines depth and breadth with clarity... check! Left me wanting more on other topics... check!
7:05 That's some weird wording. “Don’t beat your slaves like a brute animal or a fool.” LOL yeah, that's only for livestock & the mentally handicapped.
it is true that from a purely academic and philosophical standpoint, we can't exactly judge the written actions of the past by our own modern moral framework. however, religious people make a claim that their morality based on the Bible is superior and absolute, and that is where you find the contradiction. if slavery and beating your children was not only allowed but encouraged in the past, then it should also be the same today. of course you would be hard pressed to find a person who would be fine with modern slavery as it was presented in the bible
True. Remember however, we have had at least one congressional politician who actually implied, in the last year, that slavery in the US was beneficial to African slaves. It is the apologetics around objective morality and man's ability to be an independent moral agent that keeps this topic at all controversial.
Can you answer why Jesus told slaves to obey their masters even the cruel ones? I mean, jesus is god, god told them to keep going and be complacent. Soooo, what's up with that?
@@Folsomdsf2 I have a chapter in my new book that dedicates a significant section to slavery in the NT and the early church. The idea that the NT condemns or even suggests that slavery is immoral or should be done away with is simply not in the text. The passages that are used to argue that the NT condemns slavery (e.g., Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 1:10) do no such thing.
@@DigitalHammurabiwhy don't Jesus abolished the slavery you religious people defended the wrong thing did you think if any human being need a slave to do his darty jobs and don't give him his penny the work he does
You seriously believe a man who loved his daughter would sell her into slavery, where she is not allowed to go out and is owned by the man she was sold to? It's not just cultural context to say that selling someone into slavery is not an act of love. If you live in a culture that takes for granted the kicking of dogs, does that make it kind or loving to kick a dog? These acts are wrong because they are abusive and cruel, not just because the surrounding culture considers them wrong. A cultural context that condones such abuses increases the wrong. It certainly doesn't decrease it.
Cat Woods What if the other option was that his daughter would likely starve to death or suffer more otherwise? I'm not saying slavery was morally correct even then, but I can easily think of situations where a parent might not conclude it to be the worst option for their kid in a society without any social security.
Globe Agent Ron Burgundy knows.. quite simply OT slavery is what todays 'employment' has progressed into and boy what an absolute shambolic mess that is... the social security for israel was this Leviticus19 9When you reap the harvest of your land, you are not to reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10You must not strip your vineyard bare or gather its fallen grapes. Leave them for the poor and the sojourner. I am the LORD your God. i suspect nations around israel wasn't so giving with their social offerings, not only this but their was also tithing (a 10% tax) which primarily this was for the levites, but sure leftovers were dedicated to the needy among us ================================== for those of you that are the Lord gods flock (lions on the land).. i'll exodus us from their corrupt nations and bring us back under his rule over us (separated) facebook.com/groups/564121650373359/ (virtual meeting place) the best way to describe the UK/US/EU/ISRAHELL (iniquity nations). is that it is a ship (corporation) the establishment are the crew officials (iniquity spirits) and the voters (human employees/slaves) are its rowers.. the rowers that play up end up getting put in the holding cell (jail time) and the non-voters (rebels) are the rats scurrying around on their ship getting exterminated where they can get them I'm the man going around this corporate ship looking to take those worthy enough (equitable spirits) off of that ship and sail our own righteous ship instead this righteous ship (to which the lord will give us) will sail with our Lord god watching over us and policing ourselves as we should in his eyes (todays writings are not originals but they do still contain some top notch commandments that i hands down before the Lord agree with) not only from within the ship.. but from outside vessels looking to sink our ship or even capture it (all within a motionless enclosed pressured level plane world) however instead of it being called a ship... it'll be a kingdom on the land surrounded by nations (other vessels) th-cam.com/video/AzbcEus1Mbs/w-d-xo.html proverbs 14 2Whoever walks in uprightness fears the LORD, but he who is devious in his ways despises him. 11The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish. 28In a multitude of people is the glory of a king, but without people a prince is ruined. May the Lord god bless those of us (house of israel) and not all
The rod to which reference is made in scripture is the Shepherd's rod, which the Shepherd uses to guide the sheep to keep them out of danger. The Shepherd does not beat the sheep with the rod. The Father who is 'selling his daughter as a slave' is 'selling her as an indentured servant' and once the debt is paid she is free to go as long as the owner (or his son) has not made a promise to marry her and invited her to lie with him. If that is the case, then then whomever promised to be her spouse must keep their promise and be her spouse and they cannot send her away like they do the male slaves.
So what ??? Selling one's daughter is messed up rather it be indentured servitude or not. There was a reason indentured servitude was outlawed and done away with. Indentured servitude is still immoral .
@@Raiden-the-Goat32, this was a different culture in the ancient world to which G*d was trying to introduce changes without receiving an immediate response of outright rebellion from humanity, who had very different ideas about what was moral than what we do today. In fact, most of what we believe about slavery being immoral today is due to the Bible. In the New Testament book of Philemon, Paul instructs Onesimus' Master to no longer keep Onesimus as a slave, providing reasons why Philemon should not. Neither Jews nor Christians have been the major practitioners of slavery, though the majority of attention is drawn to slavery as it was practiced in North America whenever the subject is broached. In fact, those who practiced the worst forms of slavery in the past still practice those same forms of slavery today because their holy book excuses their behavior as long as their slave does not choose to follow the same belief system as their owner.
@@shadowwright3232 Regarding your comment "this was a different culture in the ancient world to which G*d was trying to introduce changes without receiving an immediate response of outright rebellion from humanity, who had very different ideas about what was moral than what we do today.". The god of the bible clearly had no problem instructing a tonne of other rules. What a feeble god who only instructs rules that don't provoke outright rebellion. God was so feeble he could not even say "Slavery is wrong. Thou shalt not own another person as property". This is one of the many reasons why I cannot accept the bible as coming from any god.
That's not the point. You're engaging in a logical fallacy and a bit of apologetics. The argument is, are these texts inspired or literal word of an all perfect being. Are they good for all times? Should they be held in any veneration? If yes, then even the spanking shud be taboo if a million years from now we humans are gonna arrive to a conclusion that's the best ethical solution. Otherwise what's what's use? Thank you
I can’t believe that I actually considered being your Patreon. I sat listening up until 7:04 in horror, then couldn’t listen any more. My degree was in anthropology/archaeology. Just because this book from the Middle East survived doesn’t mean many or most people in that society thought spanking or slavery was moral. It just means that the guys writing these laws down had their reasons, and we don’t know for sure what they were. For all you know this book could have been written by a group that might have started out as a fanatical religious cult. I’ve met children who were beaten by their parents who justified it by what they thought was moral, and few of those children ever speak to those parents today. I also come from the first settlers in California and know of Chinese girls who were sold as slaves by there parents. It was completely legal then in China, but the girls knew it was wrong and hateful. I could give you dozens of examples of cultures where normal was only so to those dishing out the abuse. And I have met plenty of parents who say they love their children but they don’t.
Thank you so much for your comment :) You are quite correct; we definitely shouldn't assume that the evidence we have that speaks of the treatment of slaves, children, and women, represents the views and morality of everyone in that culture. However, we can only talk about what evidence we DO have - and the evidence that exists from the Hebrew Bible and the wider Ancient Near East is very consistent, and does give this impression. We're by no means arguing that beating children, or slaves (or ANYONE) is at all moral, simply that it was common in this particular culture and appears to have been considered moral behavior by those who wrote the material we are using today. Again, we are by no means condoning any kind of physical violence. I hope you find a more suitable channel to contribute to!
Are you aware that "this book from the Middle East" is not anywhere near the only source surviving from those times? There are something like 500,000 cuneiform tablets in museums around the world. And these fully support that slavery was widespread in the Ancient Near East (ANE) before and during the writing of "this book". For example, in "Life and Society in the Hittite World", Trevor Bryce writes on p. 51, "There is little doubt that a significant proportion of the homeland population consisted of slaves, particularly if we include the category of thousands of 'booty-people' imported as spoils of military conquests." Similar evidence survives of slavery from Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria. It is true that slavery was common in those times in the Near East and it is reflected in the culture that wrote "this book". The fact that people chose to create religions out of "this book" and used these ancient practices to justify their immoral behavior doesn't change the fact that it was widespread in those days. In the case of the Hittites, like in "this book", we even have the law codes. (These are discussed by Bryce in the book above; they are remarkably similar to the laws found in "this book". ) In case you wonder about the source for the Hittite law codes, quoting Bryce again, p.p. 33-34, "Our knowledge of Hittite law and its application is based on a range of sources. These include minutes of court proceedings which record the testimony of the participants involved in litigation (for example, defendants accused of theft or having misappropriated certain items placed in their charge), instructions issued by the king to provincial administrators who have been assigned judicial responsibilities in their regions , records of cases arising from disputes in and between vassal states, especially Syria where they were generally dealt with by one of the king's representatives in the region (often the viceroy), and an occasional reference to court cases in the homeland, like the lawsuits involving the prince Hattusili (later king Hattusili III) and his rival and distant relative Arma-Tarhunda.... However the collection we have called The Laws is by far the most important source of information on the operation of law and justice in the Hittite world. It consists of some 200 clauses, the earliest surviving version of which dates to the Old Kingdom, around 1650 BC. ... In the centuries that followed, the collection's integrity was carefully maintained as it was repeatedly copied by successive generations of scribes. Many such copies have survived, four dating from the Old Kingdom, the remainder to the New, from c. 1400 to the kingdom's final days." You seem to think "this book" is the only source from those times. Sorry, writing had been around for a long time and clay tablets are one of the most durable storage media ever invented. The truth is, there is a massive amount known, and more being learned every day, about the ANE. The laws described in "this book" are in no way unusual, and, in fact, are quite typical of the Ancient Near East. My point is this: you said, "For all you know this book could have been written by a group that might have started out as a fanatical religious cult." This is false. Governments and human culture throughout the region practiced very similar Law, such Law was the norm for a very long time in the region. You are ignorant. There is no shame in being ignorant. There is only shame if you chose to remain ignorant and refuse to learn. So you should support @Digital Hammurabi. It would be a good investment. This channel is producing a ton of excellent material.
@@Blitnock Yes, I am aware of the surviving documents. I've seen some of them. And I have read translations of some of them. And I am extremely aware of the problems of translations and the so-called consistency the texts and the archaelology. You are the one who is ignorant. You just proved it. Go back to school and crack open a book. Scholars hotly contest the consistency of all these documents. And Digital Hammurabi should know better. Shame on him.
@@arielle2745 Dr Josh is a gentleman and a scholar. Two things, I might add, I see no evidence of in you. Comments from you like: "Go back to school and crack open a book" are most unwelcome and unjustified.
Digital Hammurabi - video idea - the view of the “cosmos” in the ancient Middle East. For example, Doesn’t Genesis 1:1 refer only to when Elohim began to create the sky (translated Heavens) and land (translated Earth)? Immediately following this is a comment on the seas ... and darkness was over the face of Tehom, a sea “dragon” of chaos. So taken at face value, Elohim created the sky and the land, but not the seas, or at least not in Genesis. It may imply that Elohim had already created the seas. In Genesis, the land the Hebrews live on is the center of all that exists. They had no concept of planets, stars (beyond their error-laden view of the sun), or galaxies. The stars were just burning rocks in a nearby firmament . God was in the same sky that the birds flew in
Code of Hammurabi: 196. If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. 200. If a man knock out a tooth of a man of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth.
@@ddannydaniel3340 You said: "why do you interpret eye and tooth as permanent damage". I was answering your question. It's interpreted as permanent damage because it's literal. We know it's literal because the exact same laws are found in neighboring civilizations. Those are two separate laws in Hammurabi's Code (#196 and #200), not a single figurative expression.
Why no one is thinking these alien that Jews had to treat well ,these were maybe like immigrant of today, or immigration workers of today who will go back once they finish
Sorry, but this religious rationalization about different standards back then so it was OK back then doesn’t fly. Keep in mind that Christ was supposed to move the world away from that old style type of thinking, but Christ also spoke about how to deal with slaves!
You really need to watch the video. I am an atheist arguing that slavery apologetics are bad. The slavery in the OT was not some “nice” kind of slavery.
It's evidence that supports the notion that the OT is not the inspired word of an omni God with an absolute moral system. It certainly proves that such a God had no direct hand in it. It also proves that if a god does exist, and it holds to an absolute standard of morality, it hasn't got the power to intervene in the world.
Re: 1st objection at 3:23. It would make as much sense to say, “Given the clear statements about slaves being ‘your money’, we must be misunderstanding the passages about the same groups having full rights and being loved.” (and I liked Dr Josh’ comments on assumptions about love) There is an assumption that all biblical authors agreed on everything . I see a lot of evidence against that. There is also an assumption that over time and geography, words continued to mean the same thing in each text. Most languages evolve. I would guess that the greatest “evolver” for ancient Hebrew was the Babylonian Exile.
The problem is that you can not be logical, honest and explain language to people whose arguments depends on not accepting your explanations even when you have a PhD in the topic and they don't. This is simple hypocrisy. Praise and JIL during the debate were just massively dishonest. They basically claimed: Slavery is not slavery, beating a slave is not beating a slave, punishing with the rod is not punishing with the rod, selling daughter into prostitution is not selling daughter into prostitution etc... They don t refute the text they dismiss everything presented because they need to defend the text that will lead them to paradise and they need the afterlife because their current life sucks and without the belief in an afterlife they would be depressed and find no meaning in life. They are being dishonest and know it and the audience knows it. They are not helping people come to Jesus, they are doing the opposite.
@@paradisecityX0 It has everything to do with the afterlife for YECs. They have a shitty life and yearn to get to paradise. So anything that could lead them to doubting or questioning the veracity of the Bible questions their view of the afterlife and they don t want to lose that because it is the only thing they can look forward to. Abrahamic religions are about the rewards in the afterlife. Praise, Jil and all others like them will dismiss ANY evidence. Without paradise you won t see your loved ones again so why would life be worth living once you realize you believed in fairy tales all your life and wasted it? This is why they are incapable of learning or listening because they don t want to lose the faith
The spanking argument doesn't really relate to many countries (60 odd) who outlawed that, some decades ago, it is already illegal and seen as immoral by most ppl in my country and many others. I do like the presentation and this channel, very informative thank you.
Sheeesh... I am a big fan of Dr Josh, but this video....surprised me to say the least. Please just call out the slavery BS like it ought to be called out. No good "Being" would ever inspire such verses which speak of slavery the way the Bible speaks of slavery. Slavery is one of the worst atrocities humans have ever committed.
@@DigitalHammurabi Apologies, I woke up today and I was horrified to discover that I had posted the above comment on TH-cam whilst not sober. I've now re-watched the video and I retract my original comment above, with sincere apologies.
I completely get it. Honestly, the title is probably misleading, now that I think about it. Lol. I feel like I have spent the majority of the last two years online arguing with Christian apologists, getting them to see that OT slavery is ACTUAL SLAVERY… and that it’s bad. I never thought I would have to do that. Lol
Hey Dr. Josh, Great clinical analysis and I appreciate your closing caveat. I watched the debate you participated in on "Modern Day Debate" where the debate question posed was, "Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?". In my view it's the question which determines what is a correct response. In which case I would have to side with the negation of the question if the claim is that the Old Testament endorses slavery, and the affirmative if the proposition is that the Old Testament does not endorse slavery. I believe one must have a clear definition, or understanding, of what the question entails since the question cited can be taken in several ways. I think many, if not nearly all, would interpret the question as, "Does God endorse slavery", without considering that the Old Testament narrates God's relationship with the Israelite people, and have very little understanding of that "covenant" relationship and the prophetic nature that relationship develops with the clear intent of the "fulfillment of the law in Christ". An argument can be made that Israelite slavery was the result of their disobedience of God. Without getting into references, citations and quotes we can say that as a result of their disobedience the Israelites "accepted" slavery and God "regulated" the practice without either condoning or endorsing the practice. In this respect we can say that elements of the Old Testament serve as a prognostic narrative of future events and desired outcomes. Such as the eventual universal, or objective, condemnation of slavery in all it's forms. We know that despite their being different types of slavery, all types of slavery today is internationally considered "chattel slavery". But, I think when dealing with slavery in antiquity distinctions must be made in that Old Testament slavery was never the result of one person forcing an innocent person, or without legal authority into perpetual slavery, and "kidnapping" was strictly prohibited and punishable by death. The history of modern slavery is clear cut and unambiguous. As a descendent of slaves and a Christian I take the topic seriously. Today it's estimated that some 29 million people are slaves. The worst of which is child slavery, sexual and physical abuse of those children which I've witnessed first hand. Nearly all organizations at the fore of this fight against child, and human trafficking are Christian. Seems to me God made a pretty good prophetic prognosis. Peace.
If the Bible was against slavery it could have clearly stated it, but instead it contains instructions on how slaves are to be treated. It is so crystal clear that I don't even understand why is this question even debated? Only reason I can think of is the denial of the religious fundies who wish to find loop holes to explain away everything not fitting their agenda.
@@globeagentronburgundy9747, When I'm confronted with questions like this I ask if God is supposed to wipe our noses when we bloody them ourselves? My main contention here is with the use of the term "chattel slavery" considering it's etymological origins and rationales for use. A clear understanding of ancient history within it's modern discord makes it obvious that the type of slavery practiced in the OT barely resembles it's more modern incarnation. Therefore, by my reckoning is undeserving of the description as understood and applied today. The mere fact that slaves under Hebrew Law were allowed respite. That the "master" would be held accountable for the health of the "slave" and be punished if he caused the "slaves" death" automatically disqualifies Old Testament slaves as that of "chattel". Therefore any biblical references to slavery in the OT must be contextually based on the terms I described in my original post here. In my opinion Dr. Josh makes the same mistake many make in equating OT slavery with modern slavery, if only by use of terms. Peace.
utopiabuster 2017 You are deflecting and making up excuses so you don't have to admit "inconvenient" facts like that the Bible condones owning people as property and beating them to near death. It's simple as that and trying to deny it just makes Christians look dishonest / without actual moral backbone. Correct approach would be to admit what the Bible says without sugar coating it and then either agree with the book or disagree with it. And to answer is God supposed to wipe our noses? I would expect a loving God clearly state in a book that contains his word that no people are to be held against their will under any circumstances unless it is for example protecting others (like prisoning someone) or some other code of justice that actually seems just in the past, now and in the future. And If you wish to convince me that a being able to create universes tells us we can own and beat others close to death, I'm going to need a bit more evidence than currently available to believe that.
@@globeagentronburgundy9747 , Sorry, I'm not deflecting. It's doubtful you know enough about the history of slavery or biblical exegesis to make an objective analysis. Which includes basic Torah tenets and principles. Ancient Hebrews accepted slavery and God regulated it. That's obvious. The term "chattel" has further ancillary implications which disqualifies it's applicability to OT slavery in every contextual basis. Peace
utopiabuster 2017 I don't need to know anything about history to make an objective analysis on this: owning people as property isn't something I would expect any higher power to condone, it sounds more like a code pushed by the slave owners lobby than something that actually came from God. It is obvious that God regulated slavery? No, it most certainly isn't, you can't even prove God exists so his potential views on slavery certainly can't be obvious to you or any of the rest of us that don't have direct conversations with him. Even if God exists and had some/a lot of influence in what is written in the Bible, afaik the consensus understanding is that the Bible contains errors and internal contradictions so how can anyone trust everything that is written in the book? How can anyone be sure that for example pro slavery etc. parties have not corrupted the contents to push their own agendas? Why does God not send some angel to deliver us an updated/verified version of the book so all these debates can end and people can get the info straight from the source? What is the value in having us practically blindly believe in something thousands of years old when it's contents and meaning is so unclear that even scholars can't agree on it?
The comments about love then and now could go a step further. We can say, “A man who would sell his daughters into slavery did not love his daughters as much as I love mine, because I take my daughters’ joy into consideration and that rules out slavery.” The advancement of culture allows us to love more. Bad culture can damage us emotionally and make us think that abuse can be a part of love.
I find it hard to listen to the drivel you spout. The criticism of the prescription regarding physical chastisement of children or slaves or the sale of children as slaves is NOT objected to because we expect people of antiquity to have the same moral standards as we do. The objection is the permission claimed to be coming from God. Thoroughly disappointed with your understanding of the criticism of the biblical text.
@@DigitalHammurabi Hard to say what your position is, it being a bit all over the place But you seem to evade the Christian belief that the Bible comes from God. No one expects the Epic of Gilgamesh to be true, or the Iliad, or the Odyssey. Or Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. Additionally, no one expects the morality in those to reflect present day morals, because, well, another time another place So if you tell us the biblical times have different morals, you are wasting our time. The basic attitude of agnostics like myself and most atheists I know is that morality develops by consensus, and moreover it EVOLVES and because of the dissemination of logic and reason, it has evolved for the better. Any text that didn't predict and prescribe this better morality, is not inspired by God , and relegated to inconsequence in the world's record of moral failure. The Bible has a lot worse in shocking morality that you have again hidden in the basement. Even to the extent of the right and duty of parents to kill the children that displease them. If I have to be charitable towards you ( and we agnostics are charitable,) I would still have to say that your understanding of ethics and morals is really superficial, and your understanding of why people criticise the Bible is rather deficient.
@@chrisdsouza8685 It is NOT a christian belief that the Bible came from God. Some Christians believe this but others dont. The majority of Christians would call the bible a collection of texts, not something from God. To say someone is wasting their time to talk about historical context shows that history isnt a good subject for you. But the fact your making things up and dont even know what that persons position is tells us enough.
You have put a lot of time and study into this subject Dr Bowen. You note that commentators don't always agree and you hold views tentatively on certain verses. Here are a few thoughts which may be pertinent. The word Naqam as you acknowledge generally is used in the sense of blood vengeance. Also in Genesis 9:6 a general principle is established. _" From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."_ Here is the primary reason that man has intrinsic dignity, and his life's value is not estimated by his status in society. Add to this the life for life injunctions in the Law and it's very difficult to conclude that vengeance here does not mean death for the slaveowner. It's hard to make sense of the law about not returning a runaway slave to their master if abused slaves in Israel were expected to just grin and bear it. And these were likely slaves fleeing to Israel from other countries whose own laws mandated returning them to their masters. But in Israel the masters can beat them into submission at will! The eye and tooth seem more like a principle than *the* exhaustive reasons a slave must be released for, and in the same chapter you have other additions like, hand for hand, burn for burn,wound for wound etc. Furthermore in Exodus 21 several examples of violent scenarios are given without the slightest suggestion of being condoned by God. It's just if or when this happens, then do this. I can see how verses in Proverbs could be taken as open season on slaves.At the same time the main focus of the Book is moral wisdom and folly. For example the verse with "a rod for the back of fools" hardly means that there were police going around beating up moral fools in Israel, or that the prophets generally took this approach. It isn't actually legislative but I can see how it could taken in this way. You said that you didn't agree with everything the scholars you quoted said. Particularly egregious though is Nelson's comment that Israel was not prohibited to rape women taken captive in war. He cites Judges 4 but this is actually about Sisera's mother wondering what is delaying him and his soldiers from returning, and it's her princesses who reply to the effect that they must be busy raping female captives! So these are the pagan army not Israel.th-cam.com/video/-8ylDgXNpyk/w-d-xo.html I think you try to be scholarly and fair in your approach. I don't subscribe to the liberal scholars slicing and dicing approach to the Bible, and Jesus did say that one of the two greatest commandments on which the whole of the Law and the Prophets hangs is "You shall love your neighbour as yourself"
The spanking analogy seems flawed to me, as you would have to make the illustration that this loving father would spank, and beat really, one of his children but not the others, even thought they did the same unacceptable behaviors, telling his children spanking and beating were wrong and immoral, unloving and unjust, but for the other child, his least favorite child beating them was loving and just. Or possibly more to the point, one child out of all his other children was never beaten or spanked "because I love all my children, and spanking children is loving, but not for my favorite."
this gentleman's argument about the father spanking the child points out that god has no morals, if god themself told people to own each other as slaves. the father who spanked is abusing his son, whether he chooses to see it as such or not, just like back in the day, people were immorally owning each other, believing it was normal. this doesn't make slavery any more moral. if his example were honest, and not twisting facts, then you'd think people today would think everything is fair and just, wouldn't you? what he forgets to point out is that no slave wanted to be a slave. no child wants to be beaten. society changes slowly over the centuries. morality is not relative to culture, it is just understood through the lens of culture. it was never any more or less right to own slaves, just like it was never any more or less right to beat a child. and while a father may feel strong emotions for their child, clearly they are nit acting as loving as a father who doesn't beat their child. love is an action, not a feeling. by this gentleman's definition, all fatherks love their children regardless of how they treat them. think about that. believe it or not, there were fathers who didn't beat their children back in the day too. this presenter makes so many excuses for the bible, without realizing that the answer to ALL these questions is that the bible is simply a book written by men, with no divine intervention, that doesn't hold up to today's standards, AND SHOULDN'T. it should be forgotten. move on. find new spiritual texts that were written in the 21st century and have some insight from modern sociology and psychology and neuroscience. his problem is that he refuses to question the bible's validity. and what an absolutely disgusting justification for slavery. i hope this guy becomes a slave himself.
When you say it might sound horrific to us but in that context it was not seen as that totally ignores the slaves' pov. I can't imagine the daughter sold to slavery felt it was not horrific and oppressive. I find it a weak argument used by many apologetics in the past and surprised you fell into the trap of only thinking abou the patriarchal side of morals and the law. I doubt many slaves found it moral in any way, especially when being abused legally.
You have to defend the bible no matter what. Do not explain biblical slavery away, just own it and save your breath. Slavery is slavery no matter how you spin it.
We're not actually trying to defend the Bible (Josh is actually an agnostic), but simply examine some claims often made about it. Thank you for your comment!
I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding, but it appears to me that you are arguing that we should not judge ancient Israelite law as being immoral. The issue I find with that argument is that these laws supposedly come from this perfectly moral deity. If you do not believe that, then I suppose this wouldn't apply to you. But if you do, then how do you reconcile the immorality of slavery and its permittance by the Israelite god with this god's moral nature? Relativistic morality and an objectively moral god cannot coexist. If you don't claim that the Levitical law comes from God, then that casts doubt on the divine legitimacy of all supposed proclamations from God in the Bible and, therefore, the legitimacy of the Bible itself. I don't know by what method you can go through the Bible and accurately identify what originated from God and what doesn't. There's no divine litmus test.
Let me sum up how wrong this is. Owning a person is wrong. Culture, financial reasons, what year it was, or whatever is used to justify is disgusting. Yahweh tells you to not eat shrimp, but doesn’t think it is important to say don’t own someone. No analogy exists that explains that it is okay to own another person. So. Yahweh is a jerk or &$/“$#%. Or he doesn’t exist. Your choice.
@Digital Hammurabi Great summary within scholarship. Neither too broad nor narrow. Excellent. I pray you know you have my respect. In light of the historical lack of perfect enforcement of these guidelines, let us consider the possibility that the Judaic is not unlike other religions using known surroundings to explain higher things. (In education sometimes called "hooks" for memory and learning) That is, let us attempt applying "Animism" to this as other religions employ. Animism would justify the Neo-historic aspects but simultaneously render them impotent to diminish the texts' validity, as the actual historicity of the text is only as important in the text being valid as The Cherry tree in the yard of the father of George Washington, and it's non-existance having no influence on the Honesty of President Washington. Resolution to all nuances. Biblically.... "Call none the Father but God." .... "Master, why do you speak this way in parables?" ...Consider how many times throughout the text "Father" means God. Also, how many times throughout the text "Master" means Christ. Just for folly, let us apply this to the Old Testament as well, and test its' application. All slaves have a living father. No provisions exist for any exceptions. In some cases provisional law exists to settle claim disputes between the "Father" and the "Master". In special cases the slave has some say in alignment to either "Father" or "Master", occasionally having a "trial period" for the slave to decide. All slaves, foreign and domestic, face a True Dichotomy or death. All possible overviews of cenário from the text can be inserted here. Within the "Worlds" or multi-earth view, as the text applies to "The Great Day of The Lord" (commonly "end times") these guidelines/laws on slaves will not only be true ultimatums but also will be needed for resolution or prevention of confusion on the part of new "Slaves" and the "Master". That is to say "Converts into truth" and "Christ". If the view that this text, like all religious stories, are indeed Apocalyptic Prophetic Animism is true, than, not only are these expressions necessary, but they are also perfectly moral and just in righteousness. That is to say they are True. That was in no way thorough and complete, but only a brief overview. This is by far the most unusual view of the text ever presented to me. It is heretical and non-scholarly in the extreme. I expect no consensus agreement from either side of the isle, but only the skeptical and free-thinking to be capable. Your opinion would be respected and appreciated Dr. Bowen.
I am of the opinion that slavery might be necessary for people who would otherwise starve. When there's no Socialism, those not fit to survive in the economy (or nature) might turn to crime or begging in the streets, and although we might not like the term slave, it might be better than starvation for that individual. I think you need a higher resolution and faster camera (with better lighting?) so the greenscreen doesn't show through on the edges. Perhaps you could try more than just the two side and one top lights. And when are we going to official change the spelling of "the" to "teh"? ;-)
You realize the video is showing how bad the arguments of Christian apologists are… right? I wrote a book called, “Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?”, which ardently argues that it did.
Happy for your last question. Riding on the overall impression that slavery is ok (witness MAGA) It seems as if the Chosen People of God were really no different from the nations around them. Secondly, slavery sucks and if the OT/NT seem wide open to interpretation on this topic all the more reason not to use it as a basis for morality both then and now. Thirdly, having been in numerous fights in my life I cannot imagine making a rational decision afterward. A woman pleasing to him after her family is slaughtered or raped, covered with sweat and grime and the stench of battle? Not sure what they mean by that. Especially after a Bronze/Iron Age throw down. Fourthly, to say that it was morally ok then gives me the hee heebie-jeebies. That argument has been used way too many times to justify slavery in America and the slaughter of my Native American ancestors by my white ancestors and my Irish ancestors by the English. Fifthly, ok to beat children with a rod? I cannot count the times I was slapped “spanked”, cuffed, kicked, punched and dragged down a hallway to be hit by an eager participant with some form of implement by my parents, teachers (while I was incarcerated in a Christian school, PACE curriculum) and Sunday School teachers. Normally I enjoy the Ivory Tower discussions on minutia, but as you can see this one touched a raw nerve. With the rise of Christian Nationalism such open interpretation gives that crew an easy to defend platform for their agenda: “If God/Jesus didn’t speak against it, then it’s ok.” However, I am glad I found you and your lovely wife on TH-cam, glad you can share your hard won knowledge with us. It does help when the nightmares cough in the shadows.
This is awesome. I like how this looks at first like an “evangelical apologetics” video but is actually defending good and honest scholarship instead.
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
So to you the opposite of defending good and honest scholarship, is evangelical apologetics?
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Yes
@@pleaseenteraname1103
Yes, Christian.
@@klumpytheklown3798 sorry for the delay. But do you mind elaborating on that point? Because to accuse and generalizing entire category of people and movement like that seems pretty biased and reductionistic.
Slavery by its very nature demands hypocrisy (amongst other things). Aristotle said "Slaves are Slaves by nature." Yet he was perfectly aware that Diogenes had been a slave, that there were Athenian citizens who had become slaves (e.g., captured by pirates and sold in Carthage).
Very informative, well backed and professionally presented. I choose to believe you did this whilst wearing no pants.
🤭😂
Hahaha. That's a belief I could get behind.😂😂
Why do you think he is wearing a kilt?
Pants are evil. I don't believe people who are fully clothed.
salamut2202 only silk boxers
But you're talking about a book that's supposed to be inspired word of God, who is defined as eternal, perfect, and unchanging throughout all of the human perception of the scale of time. So why would something be moral according to such a God centuries ago and not moral today? Don't you know people get the idea that it's still okay or even necessary to do terrible things because the Bible says it is (for example, an unapologetic wife beater I saw on Maury once used the Bible's passages about women to justify treating his wife as property)? People aren't looking at it and saying "this was a reflection of it's time" the way we might talk about Shakespeare or Kipling. This is presented as an infallible document on which all human laws and morality must be based.
@Paris LaFlare *YAWWWWWN*
Well, we could say the God is eternal, perfect and unchangeable but human scribes who wrote those passages were not.
Because people obviously try to Create their own moral code outside of God….
Fully agreed. It’s strange to conveniently turn this supposed omnipotent and omniscient god into an entity so powerless that it has to conform to the norms and values of an ancient people. If it were a poweful god, it would actually tell the people what is moral and what isn’t, regardless of the popular opinions of the time.
Some people just doesn’t have what it takes to understand these passages. Those that do not know God do not understand them, because it was not written for them.
Your content and presentation is getting better and more easily understood. Dr.Josh and Megan should be congratulated for their information into Near Eastern religions and beliefs.
This is your sexiest editing job yet. GREAT JOB on the visual presentation. It so perfectly fits with the verbal presentation. You folks get better all the time and it's so fun to be here already, the future of your content will be quite grand.
Dr. Josh, the clearest exposition yet, including the difficulties, out of the many times you have covered this topic. Thanks.
Another great video. I love that I can get unbiased educational info here. Thank you
15 "You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16, ESV)
Fantastic! I always enjoy a new upload. I particularly enjoyed the quotes from other people towards the end of the video, allowing us, the audience, to hear other voices on the matter. Thank you for your hard work!
I loved your debunking of the false dichotomy whereby everything is either loving and good or hateful and bad. You can be a loving, caring slave owner if there is no doubt in your mind, not even in the darkest depths, that slave owning is correct and moral, and that you are doing the best that you can for your family, community and slaves. It is immoral, but not necessarily hateful, to have well treated slaves even though you understand that they should really be free. There are lots of alternatives apart from love and hate.
The message about the Bible that we should defend is that no book, whoever wrote it and whatever it says, can be true and moral through the ages. That is, unless the book miraculously changes with the times, and gives the same message to each reader, self-adapting the words and the meanings and the metaphors so every reader will get the same message.
I take it what you say can be applied to that which you just wrote.. So in essence why did you even bother?
Commandments are structural hierarchy for the nation.. their are levels too it and if you let weak chains in the structure will collapse.. this why you have too show willingness to our ways to be accepted among us too keep the strength of the nation together
you are quite simply either apart of your own ruling nations government or among someone else... us israelites are currently among other nations as we was exiled in 586bc
=======================
for those of you that are the Lord gods flock (lions on the land).. i'll exodus us from their corrupt nations and bring us back under his rule over us (separated) facebook.com/groups/564121650373359/ (virtual meeting place)
the best way to describe the UK/US/EU/ISRAHELL (iniquity nations). is that it is a ship (corporation) the establishment are the crew officials (iniquity spirits) and the voters (human employees/slaves) are its rowers.. the rowers that play up end up getting put in the holding cell (jail time) and the non-voters (rebels) are the rats scurrying around on their ship getting exterminated where they can get them
I'm the man going around this corporate ship looking to take those worthy enough (equitable spirits) off of that ship and sail our own righteous ship instead
this righteous ship (to which the lord will give us) will sail with our Lord god watching over us and policing ourselves as we should in his eyes (todays writings are not originals but they do still contain some top notch commandments that i hands down before the Lord agree with)
not only from within the ship.. but from outside vessels looking to sink our ship or even capture it (all within a motionless enclosed pressured level plane world)
however instead of it being called a ship... it'll be a kingdom on the land surrounded by nations (other vessels) th-cam.com/video/AzbcEus1Mbs/w-d-xo.html
proverbs 14
2Whoever walks in uprightness fears the LORD,
but he who is devious in his ways despises him.
11The house of the wicked will be destroyed,
but the tent of the upright will flourish.
28In a multitude of people is the glory of a king,
but without people a prince is ruined.
May the Lord god bless those of us (house of israel) and not all
@@Explosivo55 try stepping outside your fundamentalist bubble before trying to call anyone ignorant
@@andybeans5790 try stepping inside my bubble before you reckon your opinion matters here
That's not true. The Bible can be and is the final moral authority.
@@meta4zs Would you mind expanding on this argument, that is so lacking in actual argumentation that it is no argument at all? I will help you make an argument: start with explaining how a book that is full of internal contradictions can be the final moral authority, or the final word, on anything, and you will be a very, very little bit closer to an actual argument.
I really enjoyed this presentation, thank you
Great video Dr. Josh .... the issue is often in these Christian vs atheist debates Christians will use moral/cultural relativism against the skeptic all the while ignoring the relativism in the case of biblical slavery and claim a nebulous higher unchanging form of morality.
Just curious, how many here would choose to live their life as a slave?
I would. I would fking choose to be a slave you absolute troglodyte.
Yes I’m 26 minutes in and too dense to get the condemnation yet...wait, somethings happening...
Just a slave to Christ.
@@Diss3mbled That wasn't nice.
In response to question 4, Hebrew does not even have a separate mood for the subjunctive. Rather the imperfect is used to indicate modality.
Another way to explain the subjunctive in other languages is to say that the “If” is conjugated in the verb. So the English translation “If you do X” is sufficient, because If is all we need in English to convey the meaning.
Another example of the use of a term meaning forever nowadays for something that wouldn't actually be forever is in Portuguese, the expression used for life sentence in prison is "prisão perpétua", even if it is obvious that no one keep the corpse in the prison after the person died.
Is it possible that a soldier waiting a month with his captive wife-to-be would be to see if she has a period during that time? The dissatisfaction could be if she doesn't and she is pregnant.
i'd say you hit the nail on the head right there
I'd also say that its so it can be deemed if she is also accepting towards the coming arrangement decided by the man.. that possibly also just killed her fella... the only time women and children are killed is when the land is being taken as our inheritance, in which everything and everyone is put too slaughter. ethnic cleansing 101
========================
for those of you that are the Lord gods flock (lions on the land).. i'll exodus us from their corrupt nations and bring us back under his rule over us (separated) facebook.com/groups/564121650373359/ (virtual meeting place)
the best way to describe the UK/US/EU/ISRAHELL (iniquity nations). is that it is a ship (corporation) the establishment are the crew officials (iniquity spirits) and the voters (human employees/slaves) are its rowers.. the rowers that play up end up getting put in the holding cell (jail time) and the non-voters (rebels) are the rats scurrying around on their ship getting exterminated where they can get them
I'm the man going around this corporate ship looking to take those worthy enough (equitable spirits) off of that ship and sail our own righteous ship instead
this righteous ship (to which the lord will give us) will sail with our Lord god watching over us and policing ourselves as we should in his eyes (todays writings are not originals but they do still contain some top notch commandments that i hands down before the Lord agree with)
not only from within the ship.. but from outside vessels looking to sink our ship or even capture it (all within a motionless enclosed pressured level plane world)
however instead of it being called a ship... it'll be a kingdom on the land surrounded by nations (other vessels) th-cam.com/video/AzbcEus1Mbs/w-d-xo.html
proverbs 14
2Whoever walks in uprightness fears the LORD,
but he who is devious in his ways despises him.
11The house of the wicked will be destroyed,
but the tent of the upright will flourish.
28In a multitude of people is the glory of a king,
but without people a prince is ruined.
May the Lord god bless those of us (house of israel) and not all
Damn, that's a good point
To me judging the past by our morals is not about condemning+ them its about learning from the past and what we are going to advocate for future laws. For example seeing slavery as evil and what has been done to slaves. Teaches us the evils of slavery without having to enslaved anyone to figure this out. That we see the evils of slavery we then can push for liberty and liberation of those who are enslaved.
Sorry guys I cant keep up. I'm confused. I understand what he means of you have to keep old ways in the old days. And it sounds wrong in the modern day. But I still dont understand what a slave was back in the old days? Your daughter is a female slave what does that mean in modern day?
Josh actually just released a book on Old Testament slavery that may be a little clearer :) www.amazon.com/Did-Old-Testament-Endorse-Slavery/dp/1734358637/ref=sr_1_2?crid=4OA24RFCFYTN&keywords=did+the+old+testament+endorse+slavery&qid=1584811873&sprefix=did+the+old%2Caps%2C171&sr=8-2&swrs=9CD2D9F186DD2518860888EAF05422D4
I thought Exodus 21 shows that only Jewish men get to be released after 6 years…No?
Great video, Josh!
"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks-those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest."
Friedrich Nietzsche
There are some behaviors which are ALWAYS immoral. It doesn't matter when you lived, murder and theft are immoral. There is a difference between morality and "acceptability". Slavery may have been acceptable but not moral, in the same way eating another human being is never moral but may be acceptable if it saves other lives
Thank you for your clarity and knowledge
As always, an excellent presentation.
I must say, however, that the whole discussion around slavery in the Bible is missing the point. Other than a handful of scholars, nobody really cares about what the Bible says. In the modern world, no one is going to sell their children into slavery and quote these passages for justification.
The real question is "how should the Bible be interpreted?" If a person takes a fundamentalist position, then he is forced into explaining away all sorts of unacceptable behavior which the Bible clearly condones.
Unfortunately the fundamentalists have no problem explaining away all the unacceptable stuff - or just ignoring it. The tragic significance is that the USA dominates world politics, and biblical literalism dominates the USA. If policy is based on a biblical starting point , then we end up with climate change denial, curbing of sexual and reproductive rights, and other lesser problems. So discussions like this need to happen so that reliance on the Bible as a basis for making important decisions can be challenged, and hopefully consigned to history.
I mostly see slavery in the Bible being brought up in discussions about the moral superiority or absolute moral authority of the Bible. Both are undermined by many of the laws or orders given by god, including laws regarding slavery.
IMO there's no such things as fundamentalism and fundamentalist though, because they are just later invented terms that were brought up when societies already evolved past the original world view that was used when these religions first appeared. We knew these stuffs weren't true or weren't able to keep up with the societal changes, but people just couldn't let go for various reasons.
@@Napoleonic_S You just defined Fundamentalism. "Fundamentalism is the belief in the original form of a religion or theory, without accepting any later ideas." Do you not believe in antiquity or the middle ages, because they are terms that were assigned later. Most abstract concepts are.
@@carpediem5232
Yeah but from within the context of the religions themselves, that later invented term doesn't exist, fundamentalism arose from external context and view toward the religions.
Digital Hammurabi, not only are these informative, you allow for nuance. And I especially love your intro! It must be so hard, knowing how hard our own language is, to know how the writers meant things. To me, it is just further proof that these books were just basics for establishing governance of an increasing population. And done so, with the norms of their times. This, to me, shows that no god had anything to do with these books. Certainly not any form of god that people think of today. 💓✌👍👍
Non sequitur th-cam.com/video/BmupvFIIspg/w-d-xo.html
Well done video on a difficult subject. 6:47 "...there will not be an answer". Could the reason for this be that in the ancient world, most slaves were foreigners captured in battle, and thus likely not to be fluent in the language of the master?
It seems unlikely that the laws followed by ancient Judeans/Isrealites never changed over the centuries during which the Old Testament texts were written. Legal changes would naturally occur in any society, even one that was not occupied by numerous conquerers who were able to impose their own laws. Thus I would expect inconsistencies when comparing any of these "snapshots" of ancient Law.
Imagine if researchers in 3000 CE looked back on an old civilization called "the U.S. of A" and asked if slavery was legal there based on a handful of documents, dating, say to 1780, 1820, 1880 and 2000.
Im loving your work! I am trying to make an RPG videogame based on history and mythology of the world... And i need to take onto consideration a few things... What i am trying to find about right now is if there was something similar to a prison at the time, and what types of punishments were common in history as in mythology too... The idea is to make the game just for adults, and try to show it in as close to the brutality of their reality and myths as possible, is there any sources you could tell me about so i can do my research? Myths are pretty easy to come by, but i havent find anything about how criminals were treated in general, just things that "should pay x money" or "should be killed" but not much about how they got to confirm or dwny if the guy is guilty and things like that
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT owning another person is okay. Is the Bible not the word of “god?”
This is why I don’t understand the Bible
Ephesians 6:5 NLT
Numbers 31:17-18
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV
Leviticus 15: 19-20
Leviticus 19:19
Leviticus 19:27
Leviticus 15: 19-20
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Numbers 31:17-18
Yes it’s saying the slave is your money and should be treated as such .
I hate to be the nit picker out of all the congratulations in the comments, but at the 29:22 mark, the word in the slide is spelled "teh" not "the," in any case, great presentation overall, definitely will share this with anyone who is interested.
Interesting as always. Thanks for always addressing the question in depth.
It seems to me a bit of an obfuscation to classify finding biblical slavery to be immoral as something we come to with modern sensibilities. If one were to have asked the slaves taken by the Israelites from the surrounding nations, I am quite certain they had issues with the justness of slavery, as indeed the Israelites and Yahweh did when His People were enslaved in Egypt.
From a European point of view, spanking one's children as an example of something that is still legal and accepted by society today feels rather weird. In Sweden it is illegal since 1979. Currently the other European countries are gradually following this example, e.g. Germany since 2000 and France (after a decade of deliberations and in a compromise form) since 2019.
Agreed, I forgot how backwards the US can be with human rights. Banned in non eu countries too, like Israel.
The Nelson quote at about 30:00 seems inaccurate inasmuch as there is a biblical law allowing married space men to leave. But if they want to keep their family, they have to remain a slave. In that case, the master/slave bond has precedence over the marital bond.
Love this channel. I keep learning so much.
Did you make say Hebrew when you were talking about the subjunctive? Isn't the OT originally in Hebrew?
If you are referring to when he spoke of the Greek, it is because he was referring to the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the OT. Pardon me if I misunderstood your question.
@@BigIdeaSeeker Oh thank you for clarifying that! I had no idea (and maybe I missed when he said it too...)
What does it mean to look at the context of a passage if passages are conflated into an uber-text called "the bible?'
Christianity really took off when St.Peter dropped the circumcision requirements for adult converts. :)
Thought that was Paul
@@hansholbein1047 Correct
In the old Hebrew culture, where there were clearly rules for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, there must have been a lot of "show me your dick" moments. How primitive they were.
@@Magar6 circumcision symbolizes the covenant between God and man. How is that primative
@@hansholbein1047 It's primitive because an all-wise being wouldn't care about skin on dicks. He could think of something better & less pervy/creepy. Your god is a creep is basically what I'm saying, and more fool you that you worship such a pervert.
Which god were they talking about?
I've heard your thoughts on the comparison of slavery in the Hebrew Bible & slave laws in Virginia but the atrocities preformed by American chattel slavery Master were not committed in the Hebraic texts
You might be missing the point. The comparison needs to be made between laws and laws.
When you were talking about the variety of ways that language can be used and you have the example "i am going to the store", what i thought you were going to say was that this is present tense but it is often used as a statement of intent. There is so much subtlety in language that you skipped right over this one while making another point from the same example.
1 Corinthians 14:33 King James Version (KJV)
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. LOL, yeah right!
Easy conclusion: god is not the author of the bible.
Very nice... say Josh, is there any way you could help bring skylar's streaming presentation into the 21st century? He can't put his meager contributions towards a new camera/mic and a green screen? It would increase his subs and creds without a doubt.
On point two you did not differentiate and explain olam ad?
Excellent presentation and break-down, especially with the spanking example. I'm really enjoying this series.
Have you ever considered bowties?
Great example with spanking.
Actually in my country it's already illegal to spank a child, whereas only 20 years ago, even though spanking was considered socially unacceptable, it was unthinkable it would become a matter of law. And only 30 years ago spanking wasn't even considered socially and morally unacceptable. We're talking only several decades here and with the Old Testament it's about several millennia.
At any rate, these objections only work as an argument against the Bible being the inerrant word of God.
Awesome content, as usual!
If Jesus was who he said he was, he was the Word of God -- the Logos. The bible is by no means inerrant
@@paradisecityX0 The Bible is not inerrant and it is clearly not the word of God, but the word of generations of humans.
I don't understand what Jesus has to do with any of this. If he even existed as an actual person and not a composite character, he never wrote down anything.
@@greggor07 That was my point; the bible is not the Word of God, Jesus was (if he was who he said he was). Although it can be debated whether it was inspired or not.
He existed, there's no "if" about it.
Buddha, Alexander, and Hannibal never wrote down anything either.
@@paradisecityX0 I don't think you can say that Jesus existed and there's no if about it. That's quite a bold claim given such extremely poor evidence.
The independent evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is far more ample, I'm not sure about Buddha.
As for the Bible being divinely inspired...if that were the case even in the slightest, if it were inspired by an omniscient being, it wouldn't be so evidently culturally influenced and dependent on historical context.
@@greggor07 Actually l can say that. According to 99% of scholars and historians best qualified to make that assessment say it's not even up for debate. historyforatheists.com
Really? How do you know it wouldn't? Do you suppose it would cater to our 21st century sensibilities?
Beating your kids is always beating your kids. People who think it might’ve been OK or was in some sort of moral context have never been beaten. I can assure you it doesn’t matter what century are living in beating your child is immoral. I’m sure they were many many many many parents who never touched thier children and never owned a slave both of these things are immoral and would’ve been immoral then.
If god is omnipotent and all seeing, why would he allow slavery in the first place if it was immoral. Instead of condemning it as immoral, which he would know it would all be abolished one day, he sets out rules and guideline for what to do with them. Not the kind of god I want to follow
So aion and olam can mean both age or eternal depending on context ?
Also I got a quick question in the bible they mention a 1000 year reign of christ until death is supposedly defeated and this gets into the question couldn't the eternal life part according to the text start after death is abolished at the end of the 1000 reign ?
The reason I ask this is not because I buy any of it it's simply because you can not have an eternal life if death is still a thing.
This is unless death applies to some and not other's.
The fact is more literal translations in those passages like young's literal and concordant literal has age lasting life and age lasting correction.
The whole idea of a punishment to correct someone being eternal is logically inconsistent.
Infact in Revelations 20 verse 1-7 it mentions a thousand year reign.
Production values that are elegantly sophisticated... check!
Scholarship that combines depth and breadth with clarity... check!
Left me wanting more on other topics... check!
7:05 That's some weird wording. “Don’t beat your slaves like a brute animal or a fool.” LOL yeah, that's only for livestock & the mentally handicapped.
So, what's the Patreon level that's required to get the bottom half of this video? Asking for a friend...
it is true that from a purely academic and philosophical standpoint, we can't exactly judge the written actions of the past by our own modern moral framework. however, religious people make a claim that their morality based on the Bible is superior and absolute, and that is where you find the contradiction. if slavery and beating your children was not only allowed but encouraged in the past, then it should also be the same today. of course you would be hard pressed to find a person who would be fine with modern slavery as it was presented in the bible
True. Remember however, we have had at least one congressional politician who actually implied, in the last year, that slavery in the US was beneficial to African slaves. It is the apologetics around objective morality and man's ability to be an independent moral agent that keeps this topic at all controversial.
Can you answer why Jesus told slaves to obey their masters even the cruel ones?
I mean, jesus is god, god told them to keep going and be complacent. Soooo, what's up with that?
Did you watch the video? I’m arguing that the Old Testament endorsed slavery.
@@DigitalHammurabi Can you answer the question on the new testament endorsing it?
@@Folsomdsf2 I have a chapter in my new book that dedicates a significant section to slavery in the NT and the early church. The idea that the NT condemns or even suggests that slavery is immoral or should be done away with is simply not in the text. The passages that are used to argue that the NT condemns slavery (e.g., Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 1:10) do no such thing.
@@DigitalHammurabiwhy don't Jesus abolished the slavery you religious people defended the wrong thing did you think if any human being need a slave to do his darty jobs and don't give him his penny the work he does
You seriously believe a man who loved his daughter would sell her into slavery, where she is not allowed to go out and is owned by the man she was sold to? It's not just cultural context to say that selling someone into slavery is not an act of love. If you live in a culture that takes for granted the kicking of dogs, does that make it kind or loving to kick a dog? These acts are wrong because they are abusive and cruel, not just because the surrounding culture considers them wrong. A cultural context that condones such abuses increases the wrong. It certainly doesn't decrease it.
Cat Woods What if the other option was that his daughter would likely starve to death or suffer more otherwise?
I'm not saying slavery was morally correct even then, but I can easily think of situations where a parent might not conclude it to be the worst option for their kid in a society without any social security.
Globe Agent Ron Burgundy knows.. quite simply OT slavery is what todays 'employment' has progressed into and boy what an absolute shambolic mess that is... the social security for israel was this
Leviticus19 9When you reap the harvest of your land, you are not to reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10You must not strip your vineyard bare or gather its fallen grapes. Leave them for the poor and the sojourner. I am the LORD your God.
i suspect nations around israel wasn't so giving with their social offerings, not only this but their was also tithing (a 10% tax) which primarily this was for the levites, but sure leftovers were dedicated to the needy among us
==================================
for those of you that are the Lord gods flock (lions on the land).. i'll exodus us from their corrupt nations and bring us back under his rule over us (separated) facebook.com/groups/564121650373359/ (virtual meeting place)
the best way to describe the UK/US/EU/ISRAHELL (iniquity nations). is that it is a ship (corporation) the establishment are the crew officials (iniquity spirits) and the voters (human employees/slaves) are its rowers.. the rowers that play up end up getting put in the holding cell (jail time) and the non-voters (rebels) are the rats scurrying around on their ship getting exterminated where they can get them
I'm the man going around this corporate ship looking to take those worthy enough (equitable spirits) off of that ship and sail our own righteous ship instead
this righteous ship (to which the lord will give us) will sail with our Lord god watching over us and policing ourselves as we should in his eyes (todays writings are not originals but they do still contain some top notch commandments that i hands down before the Lord agree with)
not only from within the ship.. but from outside vessels looking to sink our ship or even capture it (all within a motionless enclosed pressured level plane world)
however instead of it being called a ship... it'll be a kingdom on the land surrounded by nations (other vessels) th-cam.com/video/AzbcEus1Mbs/w-d-xo.html
proverbs 14
2Whoever walks in uprightness fears the LORD,
but he who is devious in his ways despises him.
11The house of the wicked will be destroyed,
but the tent of the upright will flourish.
28In a multitude of people is the glory of a king,
but without people a prince is ruined.
May the Lord god bless those of us (house of israel) and not all
That half hour went by too fast. I was actually learning something new.
Thank you!
L8tr
The rod to which reference is made in scripture is the Shepherd's rod, which the Shepherd uses to guide the sheep to keep them out of danger. The Shepherd does not beat the sheep with the rod. The Father who is 'selling his daughter as a slave' is 'selling her as an indentured servant' and once the debt is paid she is free to go as long as the owner (or his son) has not made a promise to marry her and invited her to lie with him. If that is the case, then then whomever promised to be her spouse must keep their promise and be her spouse and they cannot send her away like they do the male slaves.
So what ???
Selling one's daughter is messed up rather it be indentured servitude or not.
There was a reason indentured servitude was outlawed and done away with.
Indentured servitude is still immoral .
@@Raiden-the-Goat32, this was a different culture in the ancient world to which G*d was trying to introduce changes without receiving an immediate response of outright rebellion from humanity, who had very different ideas about what was moral than what we do today. In fact, most of what we believe about slavery being immoral today is due to the Bible. In the New Testament book of Philemon, Paul instructs Onesimus' Master to no longer keep Onesimus as a slave, providing reasons why Philemon should not.
Neither Jews nor Christians have been the major practitioners of slavery, though the majority of attention is drawn to slavery as it was practiced in North America whenever the subject is broached. In fact, those who practiced the worst forms of slavery in the past still practice those same forms of slavery today because their holy book excuses their behavior as long as their slave does not choose to follow the same belief system as their owner.
@@shadowwright3232 Regarding your comment "this was a different culture in the ancient world to which G*d was trying to introduce changes without receiving an immediate response of outright rebellion from humanity, who had very different ideas about what was moral than what we do today.". The god of the bible clearly had no problem instructing a tonne of other rules. What a feeble god who only instructs rules that don't provoke outright rebellion. God was so feeble he could not even say "Slavery is wrong. Thou shalt not own another person as property". This is one of the many reasons why I cannot accept the bible as coming from any god.
Another great video. As always I'm leaving a trail of likes in my wake😀👍
7:50 I know you Josh. The next 24:48 aren't this bad at logic; right?
So does this mean we can ignore parts of the Bible we now view as morally wrong?
That's not the point. You're engaging in a logical fallacy and a bit of apologetics. The argument is, are these texts inspired or literal word of an all perfect being. Are they good for all times? Should they be held in any veneration? If yes, then even the spanking shud be taboo if a million years from now we humans are gonna arrive to a conclusion that's the best ethical solution. Otherwise what's what's use? Thank you
But you don’t beat animals to get results.
Great video
I can’t believe that I actually considered being your Patreon. I sat listening up until 7:04 in horror, then couldn’t listen any more. My degree was in anthropology/archaeology. Just because this book from the Middle East survived doesn’t mean many or most people in that society thought spanking or slavery was moral. It just means that the guys writing these laws down had their reasons, and we don’t know for sure what they were. For all you know this book could have been written by a group that might have started out as a fanatical religious cult. I’ve met children who were beaten by their parents who justified it by what they thought was moral, and few of those children ever speak to those parents today. I also come from the first settlers in California and know of Chinese girls who were sold as slaves by there parents. It was completely legal then in China, but the girls knew it was wrong and hateful. I could give you dozens of examples of cultures where normal was only so to those dishing out the abuse. And I have met plenty of parents who say they love their children but they don’t.
Thank you so much for your comment :) You are quite correct; we definitely shouldn't assume that the evidence we have that speaks of the treatment of slaves, children, and women, represents the views and morality of everyone in that culture. However, we can only talk about what evidence we DO have - and the evidence that exists from the Hebrew Bible and the wider Ancient Near East is very consistent, and does give this impression. We're by no means arguing that beating children, or slaves (or ANYONE) is at all moral, simply that it was common in this particular culture and appears to have been considered moral behavior by those who wrote the material we are using today.
Again, we are by no means condoning any kind of physical violence.
I hope you find a more suitable channel to contribute to!
Are you aware that "this book from the Middle East" is not anywhere near the only source surviving from those times? There are something like 500,000 cuneiform tablets in museums around the world. And these fully support that slavery was widespread in the Ancient Near East (ANE) before and during the writing of "this book".
For example, in "Life and Society in the Hittite World", Trevor Bryce writes on p. 51, "There is little doubt that a significant proportion of the homeland population consisted of slaves, particularly if we include the category of thousands of 'booty-people' imported as spoils of military conquests."
Similar evidence survives of slavery from Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria.
It is true that slavery was common in those times in the Near East and it is reflected in the culture that wrote "this book". The fact that people chose to create religions out of "this book" and used these ancient practices to justify their immoral behavior doesn't change the fact that it was widespread in those days. In the case of the Hittites, like in "this book", we even have the law codes. (These are discussed by Bryce in the book above; they are remarkably similar to the laws found in "this book". )
In case you wonder about the source for the Hittite law codes, quoting Bryce again, p.p. 33-34, "Our knowledge of Hittite law and its application is based on a range of sources. These include minutes of court proceedings which record the testimony of the participants involved in litigation (for example, defendants accused of theft or having misappropriated certain items placed in their charge), instructions issued by the king to provincial administrators who have been assigned judicial responsibilities in their regions , records of cases arising from disputes in and between vassal states, especially Syria where they were generally dealt with by one of the king's representatives in the region (often the viceroy), and an occasional reference to court cases in the homeland, like the lawsuits involving the prince Hattusili (later king Hattusili III) and his rival and distant relative Arma-Tarhunda.... However the collection we have called The Laws is by far the most important source of information on the operation of law and justice in the Hittite world. It consists of some 200 clauses, the earliest surviving version of which dates to the Old Kingdom, around 1650 BC. ... In the centuries that followed, the collection's integrity was carefully maintained as it was repeatedly copied by successive generations of scribes. Many such copies have survived, four dating from the Old Kingdom, the remainder to the New, from c. 1400 to the kingdom's final days."
You seem to think "this book" is the only source from those times. Sorry, writing had been around for a long time and clay tablets are one of the most durable storage media ever invented. The truth is, there is a massive amount known, and more being learned every day, about the ANE. The laws described in "this book" are in no way unusual, and, in fact, are quite typical of the Ancient Near East.
My point is this: you said, "For all you know this book could have been written by a group that might have started out as a fanatical religious cult." This is false. Governments and human culture throughout the region practiced very similar Law, such Law was the norm for a very long time in the region.
You are ignorant. There is no shame in being ignorant. There is only shame if you chose to remain ignorant and refuse to learn. So you should support @Digital Hammurabi. It would be a good investment. This channel is producing a ton of excellent material.
@@Blitnock Yes, I am aware of the surviving documents. I've seen some of them. And I have read translations of some of them. And I am extremely aware of the problems of translations and the so-called consistency the texts and the archaelology. You are the one who is ignorant. You just proved it. Go back to school and crack open a book. Scholars hotly contest the consistency of all these documents. And Digital Hammurabi should know better. Shame on him.
@@arielle2745 Dr Josh is a gentleman and a scholar. Two things, I might add, I see no evidence of in you. Comments from you like: "Go back to school and crack open a book" are most unwelcome and unjustified.
You said "if it was illegal to spank your child". Well, it is illegal to spank your child in several countries.
Digital Hammurabi - video idea - the view of the “cosmos” in the ancient Middle East.
For example, Doesn’t Genesis 1:1 refer only to when Elohim began to create the sky (translated Heavens) and land (translated Earth)? Immediately following this is a comment on the seas ... and darkness was over the face of Tehom, a sea “dragon” of chaos. So taken at face value, Elohim created the sky and the land, but not the seas, or at least not in Genesis. It may imply that Elohim had already created the seas.
In Genesis, the land the Hebrews live on is the center of all that exists. They had no concept of planets, stars (beyond their error-laden view of the sun), or galaxies. The stars were just burning rocks in a nearby firmament . God was in the same sky that the birds flew in
Hello anyone else here in the comment section? Hello?? Damn being first is lonely. Btw love you Megan and Dr Josh.
He had to speed it up 2.5x before uploading it so that he would be talking at normal speed.
Did you just divide slavery into 5 groups. This guy is working.
Question: why do you interpret eye and tooth as permanent damage?
Because you can't grow them back. It is literal, not figurative. We see these sorts of parallel punishments in other contemporary cultures as well.
Other?....it’s idiom for law of retaliation, what are you talking about?
Code of Hammurabi:
196. If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye.
200. If a man knock out a tooth of a man of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth.
Bramble451 so?, if someone hurt you, hurt them back
@@ddannydaniel3340 You said: "why do you interpret eye and tooth as permanent damage". I was answering your question. It's interpreted as permanent damage because it's literal. We know it's literal because the exact same laws are found in neighboring civilizations. Those are two separate laws in Hammurabi's Code (#196 and #200), not a single figurative expression.
Why no one is thinking these alien that Jews had to treat well ,these were maybe like immigrant of today, or immigration workers of today who will go back once they finish
You da best.
Sorry, but this religious rationalization about different standards back then so it was OK back then doesn’t fly. Keep in mind that Christ was supposed to move the world away from that old style type of thinking, but Christ also spoke about how to deal with slaves!
You really need to watch the video. I am an atheist arguing that slavery apologetics are bad. The slavery in the OT was not some “nice” kind of slavery.
Long enough to be pass down to ones children.
I see
Not bad. Unfortunately people on both sides will end up taking this the wrong way
It's evidence that supports the notion that the OT is not the inspired word of an omni God with an absolute moral system. It certainly proves that such a God had no direct hand in it. It also proves that if a god does exist, and it holds to an absolute standard of morality, it hasn't got the power to intervene in the world.
@@bengreen171 And you're one of those taking it the wrong way. th-cam.com/video/BmupvFIIspg/w-d-xo.html
Re: 1st objection at 3:23. It would make as much sense to say, “Given the clear statements about slaves being ‘your money’, we must be misunderstanding the passages about the same groups having full rights and being loved.” (and I liked Dr Josh’ comments on assumptions about love)
There is an assumption that all biblical authors agreed on everything . I see a lot of evidence against that. There is also an assumption that over time and geography, words continued to mean the same thing in each text. Most languages evolve. I would guess that the greatest “evolver” for ancient Hebrew was the Babylonian Exile.
The problem is that you can not be logical, honest and explain language to people whose arguments depends on not accepting your explanations even when you have a PhD in the topic and they don't. This is simple hypocrisy.
Praise and JIL during the debate were just massively dishonest. They basically claimed: Slavery is not slavery, beating a slave is not beating a slave, punishing with the rod is not punishing with the rod, selling daughter into prostitution is not selling daughter into prostitution etc... They don t refute the text they dismiss everything presented because they need to defend the text that will lead them to paradise and they need the afterlife because their current life sucks and without the belief in an afterlife they would be depressed and find no meaning in life. They are being dishonest and know it and the audience knows it. They are not helping people come to Jesus, they are doing the opposite.
I don't see what the afterlife had to do with it but yeah, Praise and JiL were way out of their league
@@paradisecityX0 It has everything to do with the afterlife for YECs. They have a shitty life and yearn to get to paradise. So anything that could lead them to doubting or questioning the veracity of the Bible questions their view of the afterlife and they don t want to lose that because it is the only thing they can look forward to. Abrahamic religions are about the rewards in the afterlife.
Praise, Jil and all others like them will dismiss ANY evidence. Without paradise you won t see your loved ones again so why would life be worth living once you realize you believed in fairy tales all your life and wasted it? This is why they are incapable of learning or listening because they don t want to lose the faith
The spanking argument doesn't really relate to many countries (60 odd) who outlawed that, some decades ago, it is already illegal and seen as immoral by most ppl in my country and many others. I do like the presentation and this channel, very informative thank you.
As a german, this was quite uncomfortable to watch. How can that not be illegal? Wtf?
@@happytofu5in America it is still mostly legal
Sheeesh... I am a big fan of Dr Josh, but this video....surprised me to say the least. Please just call out the slavery BS like it ought to be called out. No good "Being" would ever inspire such verses which speak of slavery the way the Bible speaks of slavery. Slavery is one of the worst atrocities humans have ever committed.
Maybe I just don’t remember what I said in this video (no real surprise there… lol). What was I soft on?
@@DigitalHammurabi Apologies, I woke up today and I was horrified to discover that I had posted the above comment on TH-cam whilst not sober. I've now re-watched the video and I retract my original comment above, with sincere apologies.
@@Magar6 Oh, please don’t worry about it. Just happy you are getting something out of the videos :-)
Ok, I probably didn’t read it correctly.
I completely get it. Honestly, the title is probably misleading, now that I think about it. Lol. I feel like I have spent the majority of the last two years online arguing with Christian apologists, getting them to see that OT slavery is ACTUAL SLAVERY… and that it’s bad. I never thought I would have to do that. Lol
Hey Dr. Josh,
Great clinical analysis and I appreciate your closing caveat.
I watched the debate you participated in on "Modern Day Debate" where the debate question posed was, "Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?".
In my view it's the question which determines what is a correct response. In which case I would have to side with the negation of the question if the claim is that the Old Testament endorses slavery, and the affirmative if the proposition is that the Old Testament does not endorse slavery.
I believe one must have a clear definition, or understanding, of what the question entails since the question cited can be taken in several ways.
I think many, if not nearly all, would interpret the question as, "Does God endorse slavery", without considering that the Old Testament narrates God's relationship with the Israelite people, and have very little understanding of that "covenant" relationship and the prophetic nature that relationship develops with the clear intent of the "fulfillment of the law in Christ".
An argument can be made that Israelite slavery was the result of their disobedience of God. Without getting into references, citations and quotes we can say that as a result of their disobedience the Israelites "accepted" slavery and God "regulated" the practice without either condoning or endorsing the practice.
In this respect we can say that elements of the Old Testament serve as a prognostic narrative of future events and desired outcomes. Such as the eventual universal, or objective, condemnation of slavery in all it's forms.
We know that despite their being different types of slavery, all types of slavery today is internationally considered "chattel slavery".
But, I think when dealing with slavery in antiquity distinctions must be made in that Old Testament slavery was never the result of one person forcing an innocent person, or without legal authority into perpetual slavery, and "kidnapping" was strictly prohibited and punishable by death.
The history of modern slavery is clear cut and unambiguous.
As a descendent of slaves and a Christian I take the topic seriously.
Today it's estimated that some 29 million people are slaves. The worst of which is child slavery, sexual and physical abuse of those children which I've witnessed first hand.
Nearly all organizations at the fore of this fight against child, and human trafficking are Christian.
Seems to me God made a pretty good prophetic prognosis.
Peace.
If the Bible was against slavery it could have clearly stated it, but instead it contains instructions on how slaves are to be treated.
It is so crystal clear that I don't even understand why is this question even debated? Only reason I can think of is the denial of the religious fundies who wish to find loop holes to explain away everything not fitting their agenda.
@@globeagentronburgundy9747,
When I'm confronted with questions like this I ask if God is supposed to wipe our noses when we bloody them ourselves?
My main contention here is with the use of the term "chattel slavery" considering it's etymological origins and rationales for use.
A clear understanding of ancient history within it's modern discord makes it obvious that the type of slavery practiced in the OT barely resembles it's more modern incarnation. Therefore, by my reckoning is undeserving of the description as understood and applied today.
The mere fact that slaves under Hebrew Law were allowed respite. That the "master" would be held accountable for the health of the "slave" and be punished if he caused the "slaves" death" automatically disqualifies Old Testament slaves as that of "chattel".
Therefore any biblical references to slavery in the OT must be contextually based on the terms I described in my original post here.
In my opinion Dr. Josh makes the same mistake many make in equating OT slavery with modern slavery, if only by use of terms.
Peace.
utopiabuster 2017 You are deflecting and making up excuses so you don't have to admit "inconvenient" facts like that the Bible condones owning people as property and beating them to near death.
It's simple as that and trying to deny it just makes Christians look dishonest / without actual moral backbone. Correct approach would be to admit what the Bible says without sugar coating it and then either agree with the book or disagree with it.
And to answer is God supposed to wipe our noses? I would expect a loving God clearly state in a book that contains his word that no people are to be held against their will under any circumstances unless it is for example protecting others (like prisoning someone) or some other code of justice that actually seems just in the past, now and in the future.
And If you wish to convince me that a being able to create universes tells us we can own and beat others close to death, I'm going to need a bit more evidence than currently available to believe that.
@@globeagentronburgundy9747 ,
Sorry, I'm not deflecting.
It's doubtful you know enough about the history of slavery or biblical exegesis to make an objective analysis. Which includes basic Torah tenets and principles.
Ancient Hebrews accepted slavery and God regulated it.
That's obvious.
The term "chattel" has further ancillary implications which disqualifies it's applicability to OT slavery in every contextual basis.
Peace
utopiabuster 2017 I don't need to know anything about history to make an objective analysis on this: owning people as property isn't something I would expect any higher power to condone, it sounds more like a code pushed by the slave owners lobby than something that actually came from God.
It is obvious that God regulated slavery? No, it most certainly isn't, you can't even prove God exists so his potential views on slavery certainly can't be obvious to you or any of the rest of us that don't have direct conversations with him.
Even if God exists and had some/a lot of influence in what is written in the Bible, afaik the consensus understanding is that the Bible contains errors and internal contradictions so how can anyone trust everything that is written in the book? How can anyone be sure that for example pro slavery etc. parties have not corrupted the contents to push their own agendas?
Why does God not send some angel to deliver us an updated/verified version of the book so all these debates can end and people can get the info straight from the source? What is the value in having us practically blindly believe in something thousands of years old when it's contents and meaning is so unclear that even scholars can't agree on it?
The comments about love then and now could go a step further. We can say, “A man who would sell his daughters into slavery did not love his daughters as much as I love mine, because I take my daughters’ joy into consideration and that rules out slavery.” The advancement of culture allows us to love more. Bad culture can damage us emotionally and make us think that abuse can be a part of love.
I find it hard to listen to the drivel you spout. The criticism of the prescription regarding physical chastisement of children or slaves or the sale of children as slaves is NOT objected to because we expect people of antiquity to have the same moral standards as we do.
The objection is the permission claimed to be coming from God.
Thoroughly disappointed with your understanding of the criticism of the biblical text.
What on earth do you think my position is?
@@DigitalHammurabi Hard to say what your position is, it being a bit all over the place
But you seem to evade the Christian belief that the Bible comes from God. No one expects the Epic of Gilgamesh to be true, or the Iliad, or the Odyssey. Or Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. Additionally, no one expects the morality in those to reflect present day morals, because, well, another time another place
So if you tell us the biblical times have different morals, you are wasting our time.
The basic attitude of agnostics like myself and most atheists I know is that morality develops by consensus, and moreover it EVOLVES and because of the dissemination of logic and reason, it has evolved for the better.
Any text that didn't predict and prescribe this better morality, is not inspired by God , and relegated to inconsequence in the world's record of moral failure.
The Bible has a lot worse in shocking morality that you have again hidden in the basement. Even to the extent of the right and duty of parents to kill the children that displease them.
If I have to be charitable towards you ( and we agnostics are charitable,) I would still have to say that your understanding of ethics and morals is really superficial, and your understanding of why people criticise the Bible is rather deficient.
@@chrisdsouza8685 It is NOT a christian belief that the Bible came from God. Some Christians believe this but others dont. The majority of Christians would call the bible a collection of texts, not something from God. To say someone is wasting their time to talk about historical context shows that history isnt a good subject for you. But the fact your making things up and dont even know what that persons position is tells us enough.
@@KaijuOfTheOpera I don't think you read what I wrote.
You have put a lot of time and study into this subject Dr Bowen. You note that commentators don't always agree and you hold views tentatively on certain verses.
Here are a few thoughts which may be pertinent. The word Naqam as you acknowledge generally is used in the sense of blood vengeance. Also in Genesis 9:6 a general principle is established. _" From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."_
Here is the primary reason that man has intrinsic dignity, and his life's value is not estimated by his status in society.
Add to this the life for life injunctions in the Law and it's very difficult to conclude that vengeance here does not mean death for the slaveowner.
It's hard to make sense of the law about not returning a runaway slave to their master if abused slaves in Israel were expected to just grin and bear it. And these were likely slaves fleeing to Israel from other countries whose own laws mandated returning them to their masters.
But in Israel the masters can beat them into submission at will!
The eye and tooth seem more like a principle than *the* exhaustive reasons a slave must be released for, and in the same chapter you have other additions like, hand for hand, burn for burn,wound for wound etc.
Furthermore in Exodus 21 several examples of violent scenarios are given without the slightest suggestion of being condoned by God. It's just if or when this happens, then do this.
I can see how verses in Proverbs could be taken as open season on slaves.At the same time the main focus of the Book is moral wisdom and folly. For example the verse with "a rod for the back of fools" hardly means that there were police going around beating up moral fools in Israel, or that the prophets generally took this approach. It isn't actually legislative but I can see how it could taken in this way.
You said that you didn't agree with everything the scholars you quoted said. Particularly egregious though is Nelson's comment that Israel was not prohibited to rape women taken captive in war. He cites Judges 4 but this is actually about Sisera's mother wondering what is delaying him and his soldiers from returning, and it's her princesses who reply to the effect that they must be busy raping female captives! So these are the pagan army not Israel.th-cam.com/video/-8ylDgXNpyk/w-d-xo.html
I think you try to be scholarly and fair in your approach. I don't subscribe to the liberal scholars slicing and dicing approach to the Bible, and Jesus did say that one of the two greatest commandments on which the whole of the Law and the Prophets hangs is "You shall love your neighbour as yourself"
The spanking analogy seems flawed to me, as you would have to make the illustration that this loving father would spank, and beat really, one of his children but not the others, even thought they did the same unacceptable behaviors, telling his children spanking and beating were wrong and immoral, unloving and unjust, but for the other child, his least favorite child beating them was loving and just. Or possibly more to the point, one child out of all his other children was never beaten or spanked "because I love all my children, and spanking children is loving, but not for my favorite."
this gentleman's argument about the father spanking the child points out that god has no morals, if god themself told people to own each other as slaves. the father who spanked is abusing his son, whether he chooses to see it as such or not, just like back in the day, people were immorally owning each other, believing it was normal. this doesn't make slavery any more moral. if his example were honest, and not twisting facts, then you'd think people today would think everything is fair and just, wouldn't you? what he forgets to point out is that no slave wanted to be a slave. no child wants to be beaten. society changes slowly over the centuries. morality is not relative to culture, it is just understood through the lens of culture. it was never any more or less right to own slaves, just like it was never any more or less right to beat a child. and while a father may feel strong emotions for their child, clearly they are nit acting as loving as a father who doesn't beat their child. love is an action, not a feeling. by this gentleman's definition, all fatherks love their children regardless of how they treat them. think about that. believe it or not, there were fathers who didn't beat their children back in the day too. this presenter makes so many excuses for the bible, without realizing that the answer to ALL these questions is that the bible is simply a book written by men, with no divine intervention, that doesn't hold up to today's standards, AND SHOULDN'T. it should be forgotten. move on. find new spiritual texts that were written in the 21st century and have some insight from modern sociology and psychology and neuroscience. his problem is that he refuses to question the bible's validity. and what an absolutely disgusting justification for slavery. i hope this guy becomes a slave himself.
When you say it might sound horrific to us but in that context it was not seen as that totally ignores the slaves' pov. I can't imagine the daughter sold to slavery felt it was not horrific and oppressive. I find it a weak argument used by many apologetics in the past and surprised you fell into the trap of only thinking abou the patriarchal side of morals and the law. I doubt many slaves found it moral in any way, especially when being abused legally.
You have to defend the bible no matter what. Do not explain biblical slavery away, just own it and save your breath. Slavery is slavery no matter how you spin it.
We're not actually trying to defend the Bible (Josh is actually an agnostic), but simply examine some claims often made about it. Thank you for your comment!
Interesting...
I will share with a few evangelical atheists...
I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding, but it appears to me that you are arguing that we should not judge ancient Israelite law as being immoral. The issue I find with that argument is that these laws supposedly come from this perfectly moral deity. If you do not believe that, then I suppose this wouldn't apply to you. But if you do, then how do you reconcile the immorality of slavery and its permittance by the Israelite god with this god's moral nature? Relativistic morality and an objectively moral god cannot coexist.
If you don't claim that the Levitical law comes from God, then that casts doubt on the divine legitimacy of all supposed proclamations from God in the Bible and, therefore, the legitimacy of the Bible itself. I don't know by what method you can go through the Bible and accurately identify what originated from God and what doesn't. There's no divine litmus test.
Oh, I certainly do not believe that the Hebrew Bible is the inspired word of god, nor that the laws came from a divine authority.
@@DigitalHammurabi Oh, okay. I'm so accustomed to talking to fundamentalists that sometimes I forget there are people who aren't, haha. My apologies.
Let me sum up how wrong this is.
Owning a person is wrong. Culture, financial reasons, what year it was, or whatever is used to justify is disgusting.
Yahweh tells you to not eat shrimp, but doesn’t think it is important to say don’t own someone.
No analogy exists that explains that it is okay to own another person.
So. Yahweh is a jerk or &$/“$#%.
Or he doesn’t exist. Your choice.
Shush.
Nice
@Digital Hammurabi
Great summary within scholarship. Neither too broad nor narrow. Excellent.
I pray you know you have my respect.
In light of the historical lack of perfect enforcement of these guidelines, let us consider the possibility that the Judaic is not unlike other religions using known surroundings to explain higher things. (In education sometimes called "hooks" for memory and learning) That is, let us attempt applying "Animism" to this as other religions employ.
Animism would justify the Neo-historic aspects but simultaneously render them impotent to diminish the texts' validity, as the actual historicity of the text is only as important in the text being valid as The Cherry tree in the yard of the father of George Washington, and it's non-existance having no influence on the Honesty of President Washington.
Resolution to all nuances.
Biblically.... "Call none the Father but God." .... "Master, why do you speak this way in parables?" ...Consider how many times throughout the text "Father" means God. Also, how many times throughout the text "Master" means Christ.
Just for folly, let us apply this to the Old Testament as well, and test its' application.
All slaves have a living father. No provisions exist for any exceptions.
In some cases provisional law exists to settle claim disputes between the "Father" and the "Master".
In special cases the slave has some say in alignment to either "Father" or "Master", occasionally having a "trial period" for the slave to decide.
All slaves, foreign and domestic, face a True Dichotomy or death.
All possible overviews of cenário from the text can be inserted here.
Within the "Worlds" or multi-earth view, as the text applies to "The Great Day of The Lord" (commonly "end times") these guidelines/laws on slaves will not only be true ultimatums but also will be needed for resolution or prevention of confusion on the part of new "Slaves" and the "Master". That is to say "Converts into truth" and "Christ".
If the view that this text, like all religious stories, are indeed Apocalyptic Prophetic Animism is true, than, not only are these expressions necessary, but they are also perfectly moral and just in righteousness. That is to say they are True.
That was in no way thorough and complete, but only a brief overview.
This is by far the most unusual view of the text ever presented to me. It is heretical and non-scholarly in the extreme. I expect no consensus agreement from either side of the isle, but only the skeptical and free-thinking to be capable.
Your opinion would be respected and appreciated Dr. Bowen.
I am of the opinion that slavery might be necessary for people who would otherwise starve. When there's no Socialism, those not fit to survive in the economy (or nature) might turn to crime or begging in the streets, and although we might not like the term slave, it might be better than starvation for that individual.
I think you need a higher resolution and faster camera (with better lighting?) so the greenscreen doesn't show through on the edges. Perhaps you could try more than just the two side and one top lights. And when are we going to official change the spelling of "the" to "teh"? ;-)
It never ceases to amaze me how you guys try to justify Slavery in the Bible, lol.....
Tell me you didn’t watch the video without telling me you didn’t watch the video.
You realize the video is showing how bad the arguments of Christian apologists are… right? I wrote a book called, “Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?”, which ardently argues that it did.
Happy for your last question. Riding on the overall impression that slavery is ok (witness MAGA) It seems as if the Chosen People of God were really no different from the nations around them. Secondly, slavery sucks and if the OT/NT seem wide open to interpretation on this topic all the more reason not to use it as a basis for morality both then and now. Thirdly, having been in numerous fights in my life I cannot imagine making a rational decision afterward. A woman pleasing to him after her family is slaughtered or raped, covered with sweat and grime and the stench of battle? Not sure what they mean by that. Especially after a Bronze/Iron Age throw down. Fourthly, to say that it was morally ok then gives me the hee heebie-jeebies. That argument has been used way too many times to justify slavery in America and the slaughter of my Native American ancestors by my white ancestors and my Irish ancestors by the English. Fifthly, ok to beat children with a rod? I cannot count the times I was slapped “spanked”, cuffed, kicked, punched and dragged down a hallway to be hit by an eager participant with some form of implement by my parents, teachers (while I was incarcerated in a Christian school, PACE curriculum) and Sunday School teachers.
Normally I enjoy the Ivory Tower discussions on minutia, but as you can see this one touched a raw nerve. With the rise of Christian Nationalism such open interpretation gives that crew an easy to defend platform for their agenda: “If God/Jesus didn’t speak against it, then it’s ok.”
However, I am glad I found you and your lovely wife on TH-cam, glad you can share your hard won knowledge with us. It does help when the nightmares cough in the shadows.
Well said, sir.
Much love.
Dude on my mom's side is Irish and Welch and on my dad's side is Indian so I can understand why that would get to you.
Do you really have a heart? I know religion/faith blinds. But does it takes the heart away too... Extremely nauseating justification of slavery
Did you even watch the video? I am saying that slavery is immoral.
@@DigitalHammurabi ok. Let me watch again
@@DigitalHammurabi I watched it again.. and I again... I am still not convinced...I'll tell you why in a few days
But just as you say things were different bck then just as how things were different in other times