Slavery in The Bible
Slavery in The Bible
Slavery in The Bible
and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for
whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for
perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to
the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. Okay, so the Bible
says that menstealers, not slavers, are sinners, but where does it say that slavery is immoral or
not endorsed by the Bible? The paper refers to Exodus 21:16, And he that stealeth a man, and
selleth him, or if he [the stolen man] be found in his [the man-stealer] hand, he [?] shall surely be
put to death. This is a very ambiguous quote; the final he could be taken as the stolen man or
the man-stealer because both are subjects of the sentence and the final he is the reference to the
subject.
But the paper also says that Moses was not a fan of slaveryexcept he was: Exodus 21:
2-11, If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh
year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave
and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married
before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife
while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh
year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare,
'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his
master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly
pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. When a man
sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she
does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is
not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if
the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl,
but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he
may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of
these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. Still waiting
Of course, the creationists try to rationalize the quote with a dictation from Reverand
Mathew Anderson, and obviously credible source, In giving laws to regulate slavery, God is not
saying it is a good thing. In fact, by giving laws about it at all, He is plainly stating it is a bad
thing. We dont make laws to limit or regulate good things. After all, you wont find laws that tell
us it is wrong to be too healthy or that if water is too clean we have to add pollution to it.
Therefore, the fact slavery is included in the regulations of the Old Testament at all assumes that
it is a bad thing which needs regulation to prevent the damage from being too great. That
makes absolutely no sense: God made laws about it because He does not want people to use the
laws that He just gave? The paper then makes the assertion that all those quotes about slavery
are taken out of context because, I mean, there is obviously a context where slavery is okay,
right? When is slavery in any case okay? What context? Can someone present me with a
context in which slavery is a good thing? The paper also claims that the quote from Exodus 21 is
actually opposed to harsh slavery, despite the fact that the Bible plainly states that the slave
master must pierce the slaves ear with an awl!
The entire paper is just another piece of vile creationist propaganda in which the
creationists try to lie or talk their way out of the villainy of the Bible. I noticed at the beginning
of the AiG paper that it begins with a quote about stealing people and selling them into slavery; it
does not begin with a quote that says slavery is not endorsed by the Bible. The reason for this is
that the Bible and the people of the time did endorse slavery, and perhaps some of the authors of
the Bible were slave-owners themselves. The only difference between me reading the Bible and
a creationist reading the Bible is that I do not attempt to justify slave-owning.