ABUSING SLAVES | Does the Bible Endorse Slavery? (Part 8)

[@Crossoni]

Thank you for this video series, this is by far the best explanation on this topic I have ever seen!

[@salserokorsou]

He is lying and I can prove it.

[@melissahasart4969]

This was an excellent series. Thank you!

[@silive4067]

This series is great!

[@Krillian777]

I've been studying this topic extensively for the past month, reviewing countless books, materials, videos, and then some from Christian/Secular biblical scholars, atheists, apologists to gain insight on the full spectrum of perspectives around EBED in the Bible. I think your series does an outstanding job of providing a logical case for how bond servitude was nothing like chattel slavery of the African slave trade both before and after its horrid engagement in the American South. I'm reading the comments below and it sounds like most critics are livid, but I can tell by their comments that they have not taken the time to review your series or its content b/c they keep raising verses that you've dealt with head on. Now, your reasoning could be wrong, but they don't offer any explanation as to why it's wrong. Many even just quote Lev 25:44-46 again, as if that's not what you've dedicated the entire series to? That is, when you say, "Here's what Lev 25:44-46 is really getting at and why I don't think it's anything like chattel slavery", they respond with, "Oh yeah, but what about Lev 25:44-46?" It's an odd response that raises the very question that your entire series answers. The other criticisms are mostly pejoratives as if you're being manipulative, dishonest, or ignorant- But there is very little argumentation outside of the pejorative statement or label itself. That's not discussion. That's not debate. You've brought your arguments and proof texts, so if people feel you're being disingenuous or wrong, then they need to state why. I've heard a few scholars and atheists make some solid points about the different kinds of people frequenting that area, and one was particularly astute at claiming the specific instructions of Lev 25:44-46 should outweigh the more overarching instructions in other texts such as Exodus 21. But they glossed over the finer details within the verse text that I think are essential to the passage's understanding. Now you may be wrong about what the text means and how would the original readers would have understood its purpose/meaning, but I haven't really found anyone who is addressing these matters or laying down an argument against yours.

[@calebhoff409]

This was so good, thank you

[@wayneburchell6346]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Fantastic thank you.

[@JayBandersnatch]

Let me refresh your memory with the exact verse 4 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as INHERITED PROPERTY and can MAKE THEM SLAVES FOR LIFE, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Convenient how he completely left out verse 46 when it specifically states that they are slaves for life, and then claims that they weren't slaves for life. This is called being intellectually dishonest. There was different rules for the Israelite slaves as there was for non-Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves were considered LIFE-LONG PROPERTY, not indentured servants. Also, the rules of Exodus 21 were not much better. For starters, Exodus 21 allows the beating of slaves as long as they don’t die after a couple of days. Nowhere in Exodus 21 does it say the slave can go free after they’ve paid off their debt, it says they can go free after 7-years. It also specifically states that you DO NOT have to let female slaves go after 7-years like you do male slaves. It allows you to trick your slave into becoming a slave for life if the slave obtains a wife and has kids while being a slave, not only that, if the slave who has the wife and kids decides he likes freedom better than being a slave, he is set free WITHOUT the wife and kids who now belong to the slave master. I have no idea why Christians attempt to justify what the OT says about owning people as property like they do. Instead of perhaps saying “yeah, I think Moses got that one wrong”, Christians twist themselves in knots while loosing their own humanity trying to defend a clearly immoral law.

[@salserokorsou]

He is lying and I can prove it.

[@wayneburchell6346]

@@JayBandersnatch If you stop approaching this from a 21st century perspective and look at it like the ancients would have, you might be surprised. There was no welfare state, there were just those who you worked for and on whom you were dependent. If you were a Hebrew at Jubilee (which is the context of these verses), you would inherit a plot of land and could start yourself up. But foreigners would not have this option. In fact the only options for them were to starve or resume service with someone. This commandment is, in context, ensuring that servants (ebed) would not be thrown out when a son inherits. The son has the obligation to look after all servants that have served his father, regardless of their current status (so including the aged and infirm). All such servants have the option of going elsewhere if they can find someone to take on their debt or if their new master is cruel, but it is a mistake to see 'property' in this context as anything bad, since that is not how it is presented.

[@wayneburchell6346]

@@salserokorsou Who is lying and how can you prove it?

[@salserokorsou]

@@wayneburchell6346 christians, all christians. I can prove it with the bible. I can also use the bible to prove the bible is a lie.

[@ZachFish-]

Obviously the atheist comments in this series heard but didn’t listen to any of it, but I am wondering, why would Leviticus 25:46 say “but your brothers, the Israelites, you shall not treat ruthlessly” as if what was described in the earlier verse was ruthless? Appreciate it.

[@greggmyers7505]

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

[@JayBandersnatch]

So he quoted Leviticus 25 vs. 44 and 45, yet conveniently left out verse 46, which states that the slaves were slaves FOR LIFE, because that would have contradicted his argument that slaves were not "Never released". He, and other Christians, also left out Exodus 21:7 which specifically states that female slaves are not to be let go after 7 years like the male slaves.

[@greggmyers7505]

Exactly, additionally his imaginary friend says not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics but can't say don't own other people as property@@JayBandersnatch

[@KingHill0005]

@@JayBandersnatch Where will the foreigner go after they are let free dis u watch the last video ?

[@JayBandersnatch]

@@KingHill0005 What part of "Slaves for a LIFE" allows a foreigner to go free?

[@KingHill0005]

@@JayBandersnatch did you not see the word may this was to protect the foreigners because if they were let free they had no land to go back too and could not buy land in Israel I admit it’s weird wording but you just didn’t listen

[@mrs.beverlyholtz-music8835]

Owning another person is inherently abusive. T

[@gordo191]

Happy and Blessed Sabbath everyone ❤ ❤

[@Repent4JesusChrist]

Free muslims of themselves 🌙

[@mikepekarek5895]

According to the bible, god specifically orders Israelites to take involuntary slaves, especially women and children that are then available for the master's use in any way they want, short of death within a few days.

[@greggmyers7505]

You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

[@MereChristianMan]

Part 7 answers this

[@greggmyers7505]

Yes, justifying slavery. Indentured servitude, blah blah blah. Why didn't your god just say "do not own other people as property, period.@@MereChristianMan

[@MereChristianMan]

@@greggmyers7505 It does say that, in the original hebrew. I encourage you to watch the whole series as it addresses this.

[@greginfla7211]

Nice if you link the other videos in this series (in the description)

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

I've rarely seen a more egregious example of straw maning and rhetorical slight of hand to pevert the clear meaning of a passage. It is CLEAR from the Bible that early Hebrew culture was a slave owning culture. THAT'S IT!

[@mickjames7962]

No that’s not it. The definition of slave is not the same meaning as today. That’s a fact. It’s not even close. Therefore it needs explanation.

[@JayBandersnatch]

@@mickjames7962 Leviticus 25:44-46 specifically said that you can own people as property FOR LIFE. This is the very definition of chattel slavery Google "chattel slavery" and you'll find this definition: Chattel slavery is the most common form of slavery known to Americans. This system, which allowed people - considered legal property - to be bought, sold and owned forever, was lawful and supported by the United States and European powers from the 16th - 18th centuries. Now apply it to the old testament: Chattel slavery is the most common form of slavery known in Leviticus 25. This system, which allowed people - considered legal property - to be bought, sold and owned forever, was lawful and supported by Mosaic law

[@Bugsy0333]

@@mickjames7962 Does this fit the slave defintion or am i not even close ? Leviticus 25:44-46 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for (life), but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. ( ) = Life

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@mickjames7962 Yes, that's fine - however this 'explanation' is actually an attempt to make slavery into "not really slavery" by a jump in logic. Of course, slaves were not transported across the Atlantic on ships in the industrail scale that Europe managed. But they were still slaves. For most of us, this is to be expected as slavery was common in all of the cultures of the near east and Mediterranean.

[@mrs.beverlyholtz-music8835]

Hagar did not consent. And she was certainly abused. Later Abraham and Sarah were still blessed with Isaac. That doesn’t sound like a condemnation of slavery to me.

[@JayBandersnatch]

Let me refresh your memory with the exact verse 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as INHERITED PROPERTY and can MAKE THEM SLAVES FOR LIFE, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. There was different rules for the Israelite slaves as there was for non-Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves were considered LIFE-LONG PROPERTY, not indentured servants. Also, the rules of Exodus 21 were not much better. For starters, Exodus 21 allows the beating of slaves as long as they don’t die after a couple of days. Nowhere in Exodus 21 does it say the slave can go free after they’ve paid off their debt, it says they can go free after 7-years. It also specifically states that you DO NOT have to let female slaves go after 7-years like you do male slaves. It allows you to trick your slave into becoming a slave for life if the slave obtains a wife and has kids while being a slave, not only that, if the slave who has the wife and kids decides he likes freedom better than being a slave, he is set free WITHOUT the wife and kids who now belong to the slave master. I have no idea why Christians attempt to justify what the OT says about owning people as property like they do. Instead of perhaps saying “yeah, I think Moses got that one wrong”, Christians twist themselves in knots while loosing their own humanity trying to defend a clearly immoral law.

[@saintmalaclypse3217]

Leviticus 25 clearly states that there were different rules for Israelite servants (indentured servants) and slaves: "44) Your menservants and maidservants shall come from the nations around you, from whom you may purchase them. 45) You may also purchase them from the foreigners residing among you or their clans living among you who are born in your land. These may become your property. 46) You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But as for your brothers, the Israelites, no man may rule harshly over his brother." "Slaves for life" pretty much contradicts what you're trying to sell. But yes, it does you you should "buy" them, not kidnap them. Just like we did in America. We BOUGHT them from slave traders. Nobody cares how the slave traders got them, neither does God, in this passage. The amount of effort people put into defending their god from what he clearly said, and how he's clearly wrong, is just astounding. If you have to twist the truth so hard it breaks just to justify your god's sickness, maybe you shouldn't worship monsters?!

[@jeffbell7530]

You quoted Leviticus 25:45, but, of course, you didn't dare present Leviticus 25:46....which disproves your claim that this isn't slavery for life.

That is the worst language acrobatics I've seen 🤣

[@stevek6077]

I came here to comment on the egregious mental gymnastics on display to justify what is clearly chattel slavery in the bible, but I'm happy to see that others have already dismantled this man's idiocy. If these Christians could read, they'd be very upset.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

In Judaism no slavery no kidnapping no sale of any human being s. No abuse of any human being. Orthodox Jews go by Torah and Talmud . Islam and Christians were big into Afrikan slave trade collection sale and usage of such. תודה רבה שלום

[@dmnemaine]

What bible are you reading? The Jewish/Christian one absolutely endorses slavery and gives instructions on how to keep slaves and how slaves should behave. By the way, owning a person as a slave is abusing that person.

[@Zebhammer]

Can't wait for the considered atheist response to this latest video.. 🤡

[@JayBandersnatch]

I'll encourage you to read Dr. Joshua Bowens latest book "Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery" for an actual historical view on topic.

[@Bugsy0333]

Why ? Do u feel you are wrong ?

[@Zebhammer]

@@Bugsy0333 No.

[@Bugsy0333]

​@@ZebhammerYou are !

[@Zebhammer]

@@Bugsy0333 No I'm not.

[@salserokorsou]

Why are you lying to defend the bible? Don't you think that's disgusting?

[@mikepekarek5895]

So, abuse as long as slaves aren't losing body parts? 26-27 doesn't mean what you claim it means.

[@IrregularGuyYT]

Using a simple example, that basically arguing: Judge : "Don't you lay a hand on him." Citizen: "Oh, clearly that means I can kick him, and I'll be fine." The point was made through the examples of specific injuries, not requiring punishments for only specific injuries.