- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ April 06 2014,08:45) David, My “weird “ad hominem” serve a purpose as they are addressed at the modern feminist doctrine which is based on the principle of this world and not the principles of God.
There doctrine is clearly false as these creatures claim women were the slaves of men and yet men could not legally sell them. It would be more true to say they were slaves of the lawmaker.
This doctrine seeks equality with men but to be equal to a man requires one to be a male. Equivalency is the best that can be accomplished for a woman.
In the God created woman to be a helper opposite her husband. I am not sure when he gave males the authority over their women but I have read his curse was that woman would have their desire be their mate but it does say that later.
My question is the person under authority a slave to the person whose authority they are under?
No, the person under authority of someone else is not necessarily a slave. It's about the level of control. You can work on a team and be under someone's authority but not even close to a slave.One difference is ownership. A slave is property, a possession.
In the bible, a slave (or a wife) is owned by the owner (husband).
The owner or master can control every aspect of their life.A slave cannot leave. Yes, they can escape, but the mere fact at the word “escape” is used suggests they can't simply walk away.
A woman, can she just get a divorce and walk away in the bible?
(Being property or a possession, the female slaves were required to have sex and become pregnant if the owner wanted this. They had no say.)
GEN 16:1-2
“Now A′bram’s wife Sar′ai had borne him no children, but she had an Egyptian servant whose name was Ha′gar. So Sar′ai said to A′bram: “Please now! Jehovah has prevented me from bearing children. Please, have relations with my servant. Perhaps I can have children by means of her.” So A′bram listened to what Sar′ai said.”
(This account doesn't include Abraham asking the servant if she cared to have sex with Abraham. She had no choice.)
GEN 30:3,4
“So she said: “Here is my slave girl Bil′hah. Have relations with her in order that she may bear children for me and that through her, I too may have children.” With that she gave him her servant Bil′hah as a wife, and Jacob had relations with her.”
GEN 30:9,10
“When Le′ah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zil′pah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. And Le′ah’s servant Zil′pah bore a son to Jacob.”Quote (david @ April 06 2014,17:04) Quote (Colter @ April 06 2014,07:33) Quote (david @ April 05 2014,13:53) As a moderator I'm going to have to insists that we keep this discussion focused on slavery. (Fine print: I'm not a moderator)
Ok, the people who wrote parts of the Bible owned slaves in an age when that was more acceptable. So their religious rules and regulations reflect the practice. It's not rocket surgery!But the problem is, latter generation took those written traditions and claimed God inspired them, so the obvious inconsistency between what was moral then but immoral now requires a whole bunch of mental gymnastics and helps of apologetics since people consider the writings of church government to be infallible.
It's just human evolution.
Colter,Let's assume that's true. Great. End of discussion. No point discussing it then is there.
But, I'm having a discussion with people who believe the bible is inspired and believe god was behind the rules about slavery. This discussion presupposes those things. You could actually inject that thought I to many forums here. But the people in this forum presuppose what I stated. An athiest could say: there is no hellfire because god doesn't exist. But the people who believe god does exist will continue the discussion as though he does exist. Whether god exists or not is a different discussion. Similar with the idea that the bible wasn't inspired. Those ideas should perhaps be in a thread on the bible.
To me the relevance of discussing the human authorship of the Bible is that for every 10 people that find salvation in bible worship, thousands are turned off and lost because of the stubborn persistence of the false teaching that God wrote it.With this realization in mind a sincere seeker of truth is then free to pursue the spiritual truths contained in the collection of wisdom while treating various false doctrines with a grain of salt.
So when someone asks me about the biblical atrocities committed by the Jews I just explain that what might have been acceptable in that age is not acceptable now, that the church has no system of eliminating the old offensive material. The victors always get to write their own history.
But yea, bible worshipers will make excuse after excuse, the apologetics is longer than the book itself.
Quote (david @ April 03 2014,23:08) If I hold a gun to your head (or a large stick) and ask you to tie my shoe, we have not entered a contract and I am not your employer. Quote (david @ April 03 2014,23:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,11:12) Some poor people sold themselves to others. The agreement is that they would receive room and board, and in turn they would do laborious work for their owner. According to the Bible, a rich relative could buy them out of the contract, and free them.
I think we should SEPArate two words:Slavery (forced labour)
“Hired servant” (the Israelites, employees, workers)No one really is too concerned about the latter, and I keep trying to ask that we here discuss only the former, so if we could make more clear which we are talking about, or perhaps only talk about forced labour.
David,Poor Israelites could become real, live, legitimate SLAVES of another person by selling themselves to that other person.
Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES. They were from that moment on OWNED by the person to whom they sold themselves.
Quote (Colter @ April 05 2014,14:33) Quote (david @ April 05 2014,13:53) As a moderator I'm going to have to insists that we keep this discussion focused on slavery.
Ok, the people who wrote parts of the Bible owned slaves in an age when that was more acceptable…………Quote (Wakeup @ April 05 2014,04:53) Quote (david @ April 05 2014,14:33) Again, please attempt to stay on topic!
Sorry david;I shall be silent from now……….
A good moderator is like a good parent. Any good parent knows that if you immediately intervene in the squabbles of your children, you will forever be burdened with being the “problem solver” every single time a squabble springs up. And worse, your children will never learn for themselves how to handle adversity and conflict.A smart parent says, “Work it out amongst yourselves, children. I can't spend my whole day solving your problems for you.”
See how well you guys did all by yourselves? Here's a cookie for each one of you…………
David,
I am impressed with the thought, reasoning, and wit with which (say those last three words fast three times
) you addressed Colter and Kerwin.I am more impressed with the scriptures you posted that displayed the complete and utter “slavehood” of Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah. Once FORCED to bear children at the command of the people who OWNED them, they became concubines, which is a type of “second” or “lesser” wife.
Solomon was said to have had 900 concubines – not one of whom had the CHOICE to be with him sexually, bear children for him, or do anything else without his consent. They were his wives, and yet he OWNED them.
There was no “employment contract” drawn up – which both sides considered for a while, and then agreed to before signing on the dotted line. If Solomon wanted a particular girl, he either just took her as his own property, or bought her from her father.
Wives were the property of their husbands – plain and simple. They never had a choice to say, “No, I don't want to marry you.” They were sold by one owner (father) to another owner (husband).
Quote (kerwin @ April 05 2014,15:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,08:35)
The Israelites were also not allowed to sell their birthright land they inherited. Was that land their “property”?
Mike,I do not believe it was. Basically they were given the use of it by God and could sell that use though I believe the limited the length of that.
It's a hard call, Kerwin. Leviticus 25:23-28 states your claim, that the land ultimately belongs to God. But it also states my claim that the land was their own “possession” and “property” – which could not be sold permanently.But I agree that we can drop this part of our conversation and stick to discussing slavery.
Quote (david @ April 06 2014,11:57) Quote (kerwin @ April 06 2014,09:00) Quote (david @ April 04 2014,11:08) Quote (david @ April 04 2014,09:51) Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2014,04:45) Slavery is a type of employment contract whose terms vary from age to age and culture to culture. Death is sometimes the only way out of it but even then some have escaped by self exile and other ways.
What do you man by:1. Employment
2. Contract
If I and my nation go to your home right now and take you by force take you back to our place and make you our slave, where is the contract in that? Or the employment? Would you consider yourself to be in an employment contract if I took you by force and forced you to do my work?
Kerwin, I noticed you didn't define these words. Let me help you. They don't apply. If I hold a gun to your head (or a large stick) and ask you to tie my shoe, we have not entered a contract and I am not your employer.Or do you think I am?
David,According to natural law theory we have indeed entered into a contract as I have free choice such as resisting you to the point of death. My choice not to resist is implied consent though in making my choice I have counted the cost and decided the choice not to resist is my best option.
Scripture does condemn slave trading in one place but strangely enough does allow for slave taking though war. It would possibly fall under banditry in most other cases. People could sell themselves into slavery and criminals might have been subject to slavery.
Kerwin, I find this logic weird.You are saying we are in a contract because being free to kill ourself, we have decided not to?
A slave is free to kill themself, but choose not to, therefore they are in a contract? A contract is an agreement. If I hold a gun to your head to get you to agree, yes, you may say you agree, but would the contract be valid?
It's like you are saying: he chooses to be beaten because he doesn't kill himself. This is just bizarre. Isn't it?A person who is being raped is not in a contract (agreement) merely because they don't jab a pen into their own throat killing themself.
David,It is not weird. It is simply admitting that a human being is free to choose his destiny under the vast majority of circumstances. You can enslave a man's body but not his spirit.
The man can resist you in every way and there are humans that have made that choice. Some chose to die, whether or not they counted the cost. There is even one man that is said to have claimed “give me liberty or give me death” to those who imprisoned him.
Under modern law of at least some countries coerced agreement to a contract is deemed to void the contract but that is not the case with natural law. Those who created the law deemed natural law was inferior and so made a law to supersede it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2014,21:42) Quote (kerwin @ April 05 2014,15:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,08:35)
The Israelites were also not allowed to sell their birthright land they inherited. Was that land their “property”?
Mike,I do not believe it was. Basically they were given the use of it by God and could sell that use though I believe the limited the length of that.
It's a hard call, Kerwin. Leviticus 25:23-28 states your claim, that the land ultimately belongs to God. But it also states my claim that the land was their own “possession” and “property” – which could not be sold permanently.But I agree that we can drop this part of our conversation and stick to discussing slavery.
Mike,It actually states the land cannot be sold permanently with the words “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity” from Leviticus 25:23 of the ESV.
It is to be returned to the holder on the year of jubilee, at which time he can sell its use again until the next jubilee. He can buy the use back at any time previous and the party who bought it from him must sell the use back to him.
Quote (david @ April 06 2014,12:13) Quote (kerwin @ April 06 2014,08:45) David, My “weird “ad hominem” serve a purpose as they are addressed at the modern feminist doctrine which is based on the principle of this world and not the principles of God.
There doctrine is clearly false as these creatures claim women were the slaves of men and yet men could not legally sell them. It would be more true to say they were slaves of the lawmaker.
This doctrine seeks equality with men but to be equal to a man requires one to be a male. Equivalency is the best that can be accomplished for a woman.
In the God created woman to be a helper opposite her husband. I am not sure when he gave males the authority over their women but I have read his curse was that woman would have their desire be their mate but it does say that later.
My question is the person under authority a slave to the person whose authority they are under?
No, the person under authority of someone else is not necessarily a slave. It's about the level of control. You can work on a team and be under someone's authority but not even close to a slave.One difference is ownership. A slave is property, a possession.
In the bible, a slave (or a wife) is owned by the owner (husband).
The owner or master can control every aspect of their life.A slave cannot leave. Yes, they can escape, but the mere fact at the word “escape” is used suggests they can't simply walk away.
A woman, can she just get a divorce and walk away in the bible?
(Being property or a possession, the female slaves were required to have sex and become pregnant if the owner wanted this. They had no say.)
GEN 16:1-2
“Now A′bram’s wife Sar′ai had borne him no children, but she had an Egyptian servant whose name was Ha′gar. So Sar′ai said to A′bram: “Please now! Jehovah has prevented me from bearing children. Please, have relations with my servant. Perhaps I can have children by means of her.” So A′bram listened to what Sar′ai said.”
(This account doesn't include Abraham asking the servant if she cared to have sex with Abraham. She had no choice.)
GEN 30:3,4
“So she said: “Here is my slave girl Bil′hah. Have relations with her in order that she may bear children for me and that through her, I too may have children.” With that she gave him her servant Bil′hah as a wife, and Jacob had relations with her.”
GEN 30:9,10
“When Le′ah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zil′pah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. And Le′ah’s servant Zil′pah bore a son to Jacob.”
David,What you are telling me is that there were laws to ban or enable these actions and these laws were made by men. One can claim these humans are slaves only because they choose to obey the law of their culture.
In that case all men but lawbreakers are slaves. The employee is the slave of the employer because he choose to obey the rules of the employer less he be deprived of his livelihood. The citizen is a slave of the government unless he be penalized or imprisoned.
Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2014,10:37) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2014,21:42)
……..the land was their own “possession” and “property” – which could not be sold permanently.
Mike,It actually states the land cannot be sold permanently with the words “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity” from Leviticus 25:23 of the ESV.
Yes Kerwin,Just as I said the first time I brought this land up.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2014,05:59) Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2014,10:37) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2014,21:42)
……..the land was their own “possession” and “property” – which could not be sold permanently.
Mike,It actually states the land cannot be sold permanently with the words “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity” from Leviticus 25:23 of the ESV.
Yes Kerwin,Just as I said the first time I brought this land up.
Mike,Just read it wrong. Thank you for correcting me.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2014,01:53) Quote (david @ April 03 2014,23:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,11:12) Some poor people sold themselves to others. The agreement is that they would receive room and board, and in turn they would do laborious work for their owner. According to the Bible, a rich relative could buy them out of the contract, and free them.
I think we should SEPArate two words:Slavery (forced labour)
“Hired servant” (the Israelites, employees, workers)No one really is too concerned about the latter, and I keep trying to ask that we here discuss only the former, so if we could make more clear which we are talking about, or perhaps only talk about forced labour.
David,Poor Israelites could become real, live, legitimate SLAVES of another person by selling themselves to that other person.
Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES. They were from that moment on OWNED by the person to whom they sold themselves.
Well. MmmThey were to be treated differently. It was specified that they (the Israelite slaves) not be treated cruelly. That was never said of the non-Israelite slaves.
And they got to go free if they wanted in six years. Not so with the non-Israelite slaves.
And they chose their own enslavement.
Not so with many of the non-Israelite slaves.The Israelite slaves didn't do slave labor.
They were treated like hired workers, like a settler.
And they weren't to be treated cruelly.
Then we have the foreign slaves who were considered possessions.
See below.LEVITICUS 25:39-46,53
“‘If your brother [an Israelite] who lives nearby becomes poor and he has to sell himself to you, you must NOT force him to do SLAVE LABOR. He should be TREATED LIKE A HIRED WORKER, like a settler. He should serve with you until the Jubilee year. Then he will leave you, he and his children with him, and return to his family. He should return to the property of his forefathers. For they are my slaves whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They should not sell themselves the way a slave is sold. You MUST NOT TREAT HIM CRUELLY, and you must be in fear of your God. Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you, from them you may buy a male or a female slave. Also from the sons of the foreign settlers who are residing with you, from them and from their families that are born to them in your land you may buy slaves, and they will become your POSSESSION. You may pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you to inherit as a permanent POSSESSION. You may use them [non-Israeilites] as workers, but you must NOT SUBJECT YOUR ISRAELITE BROTHERS TO CRUEL TREATMENT….He should continue to serve him year by year AS A HIRED WORKER; and you should see to it that he does NOT TREAT HIM CRUELLY.”Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2014,01:53) Quote (david @ April 03 2014,23:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,11:12) Some poor people sold themselves to others. The agreement is that they would receive room and board, and in turn they would do laborious work for their owner. According to the Bible, a rich relative could buy them out of the contract, and free them.
I think we should SEPArate two words:Slavery (forced labour)
“Hired servant” (the Israelites, employees, workers)No one really is too concerned about the latter, and I keep trying to ask that we here discuss only the former, so if we could make more clear which we are talking about, or perhaps only talk about forced labour.
David,Poor Israelites could become real, live, legitimate SLAVES of another person by selling themselves to that other person.
Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES. They were from that moment on OWNED by the person to whom they sold themselves.
If I own my house but my house goes back to the bank in six years do I really own my house? It feels more like a rental situation.While the non-Israelites were called the possession or property of the owners I'm not sure that is said of the Hebrew slaves. Is it? I'm not sure.
Quote (kerwin @ April 09 2014,03:44) Quote (david @ April 06 2014,12:13) Quote (kerwin @ April 06 2014,08:45) David, My “weird “ad hominem” serve a purpose as they are addressed at the modern feminist doctrine which is based on the principle of this world and not the principles of God.
There doctrine is clearly false as these creatures claim women were the slaves of men and yet men could not legally sell them. It would be more true to say they were slaves of the lawmaker.
This doctrine seeks equality with men but to be equal to a man requires one to be a male. Equivalency is the best that can be accomplished for a woman.
In the God created woman to be a helper opposite her husband. I am not sure when he gave males the authority over their women but I have read his curse was that woman would have their desire be their mate but it does say that later.
My question is the person under authority a slave to the person whose authority they are under?
No, the person under authority of someone else is not necessarily a slave. It's about the level of control. You can work on a team and be under someone's authority but not even close to a slave.One difference is ownership. A slave is property, a possession.
In the bible, a slave (or a wife) is owned by the owner (husband).
The owner or master can control every aspect of their life.A slave cannot leave. Yes, they can escape, but the mere fact at the word “escape” is used suggests they can't simply walk away.
A woman, can she just get a divorce and walk away in the bible?
(Being property or a possession, the female slaves were required to have sex and become pregnant if the owner wanted this. They had no say.)
GEN 16:1-2
“Now A′bram’s wife Sar′ai had borne him no children, but she had an Egyptian servant whose name was Ha′gar. So Sar′ai said to A′bram: “Please now! Jehovah has prevented me from bearing children. Please, have relations with my servant. Perhaps I can have children by means of her.” So A′bram listened to what Sar′ai said.”
(This account doesn't include Abraham asking the servant if she cared to have sex with Abraham. She had no choice.)
GEN 30:3,4
“So she said: “Here is my slave girl Bil′hah. Have relations with her in order that she may bear children for me and that through her, I too may have children.” With that she gave him her servant Bil′hah as a wife, and Jacob had relations with her.”
GEN 30:9,10
“When Le′ah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zil′pah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. And Le′ah’s servant Zil′pah bore a son to Jacob.”
David,What you are telling me is that there were laws to ban or enable these actions and these laws were made by men. One can claim these humans are slaves only because they choose to obey the law of their culture.
In that case all men but lawbreakers are slaves. The employee is the slave of the employer because he choose to obey the rules of the employer less he be deprived of his livelihood. The citizen is a slave of the government unless he be penalized or imprisoned.
While I hold to some semi-conspiracy like ideas about how central banks and international bankers rule the world and have turned us all into debt slaves, realizing long ago that giving the slaves the freedom to choose their work, they are more prosperous, and produce more, all the while borrowing non-existent money from the banking institutions which poof non-existent money into thin air and which you then somehow owe them interest on…this is very different to me than “I'm going to beat you because you need a whoopin, and go fetch me some water or I'll beat you more,” type of situation. Yes, there is a system set up where we pay the interest on the loans that we have borrowed from the banks, called taxes, and if we don't pay people in uniforms come and throw us in their basement and lock the door, sure, but, I would still hold that this is very different from traditional literal slavery.I think you look at it like: choosing to obey makes you a slave.
I look at it like: having no choice but being beaten if you don't obey makes you a slave.david
Quote I think you look at it like: choosing to obey makes you a slave.
I look at it like: having no choice but being beaten if you don't obey makes you a slave.this seems to have the same effect ,it does not really matter how you see it ,but ones view will accommodate better than the other one and so can move on ,
just think how Joseph in his time made all the Egyptians slave to Pharaoh rich and poor ,(7 years prosperity 7 years famine )
Quote (david @ April 08 2014,23:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2014,01:53) Quote (david @ April 03 2014,23:10) I keep trying to ask that we here discuss only the former………
David,Poor Israelites could become real, live, legitimate SLAVES of another person by selling themselves to that other person.
If I own my house but my house goes back to the bank in six years do I really own my house? It feels more like a rental situation.While the non-Israelites were called the possession or property of the owners I'm not sure that is said of the Hebrew slaves. Is it? I'm not sure.
Dude,Why are you nit-picking? You brought up SLAVERY, and then scolded me for talking about Israelites who sold themselves into SLAVERY.
Deuteronomy 15
12 If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free.16 But if he says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your slave for life.
I don't know if Israelite slaves were ever called possessions or property of their owners, but I would imagine that if you bought something, you own that something, and it is therefore your property.
I understand what you're saying about a “rental agreement”, but some of these slaves apparently chose to be owned by their master for life.
Quote (david @ April 08 2014,23:35) While I hold to some semi-conspiracy like ideas about how central banks and international bankers rule the world and have turned us all into debt slaves…….
Conspiracy?
Can you say “Rothschild”? Or “Federal Reserve”?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2014,12:34) Quote (david @ April 08 2014,23:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2014,01:53) Quote (david @ April 03 2014,23:10) I keep trying to ask that we here discuss only the former………
David,Poor Israelites could become real, live, legitimate SLAVES of another person by selling themselves to that other person.
If I own my house but my house goes back to the bank in six years do I really own my house? It feels more like a rental situation.While the non-Israelites were called the possession or property of the owners I'm not sure that is said of the Hebrew slaves. Is it? I'm not sure.
Dude,Why are you nit-picking? You brought up SLAVERY, and then scolded me for talking about Israelites who sold themselves into SLAVERY.
Deuteronomy 15
12 If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free.16 But if he says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your slave for life.
I don't know if Israelite slaves were ever called possessions or property of their owners, but I would imagine that if you bought something, you own that something, and it is therefore your property.
I understand what you're saying about a “rental agreement”, but some of these slaves apparently chose to be owned by their master for life.
Mike. I'm not sure if you read the first ten pages of this discussion, but I don't think anyone really cares too much about the Hebrew slaves, because they were “hired workers” and not to be treated “cruelly,” and it was largely their choice (except for females which were just owned by men pretty much). Sorry, got off track. I've mentioned a few times that for me, I don't care to discuss the Hebrew slaves. Here is how this goes:I say: forced slavery of foreign nations, what's up?
Then someone else says: but they got to go free after six years.
Then I say: nope, that was the israelite slaves. Let's discuss the foreign slaves.
Then they say sure, the foreign slaves at least got money and presents when they left.
To which I say no, again, that was the Israelite slaves.
And it goes on like this for pages and pages.There is a HUGE difference between the Israelite slaves at Israelites owned, and the foreign people they took captive as slaves and considered property and did with as they pleased.
The latter is the classic image of a slave. The former is a very different willful choice often and the treatment was different and conditions and length of servitude different, and they weren't passed down as property etc.I only care about discussing the actual real slaves. Not the “hired worker” Israelites that were to be considered as brothers to them and not treated cruelly.
Mike. Yes, some chose to remain with their masters.
EXODUS 21:2-6
“If you buy a HEBREW slave, he will serve as a slave for six years, but in the seventh year, he will be set free without paying anything. If he came by himself, he will go out by himself. If he is the husband of a wife, then HIS WIFE MUST NOT GO OUT WITH HIM. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, THE WIFE AND THE CHILDREN WILL BECOME HER MASTER'S, and he will go out by himself. But if the slave should insist and say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my sons; I do not want to be set free,’ his master must bring him before the true God. Then he will bring him up against the door or the doorpost, and his master will pierce his ear through with an awl, and he will be his slave for life.”[[[[[[[edit: it was pointed out that the first capitalized words above were wrong. It should say: “his wife must go out with him.” Not “his wife must not go out with him.”]]]]]]]]
So you are a slave and have a wife and children also owned by the master. The rules are this:
You may leave after 6 years, but your family stays. What do you do? I'm sure some wanted to stay. These were men that sold themselves into slavery by choice. So some would want to stay. But even IF you wanted to leave, how hard would it be leaving your wife and children behind. Tough choice.If I kidnap you and put you and your family in prison and then tell you that you may leave if you wish but your family stays, you may find yourself wanting to stay.
But none of this matters to me. These were the Israelite “slaves” who had the option to leave after 6 years and were given presents when leaving and were supposed to be treated like brothers and not cruelly. I'm more interested in FORCED labour, slavery.
Footnote to this: if it was the jubilee year than the children and wife also get to leave with you. But this is once every 50 years.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
