- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ April 14 2014,12:15) Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2014,11:18) Quote (david @ April 10 2014,08:26) 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.”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.
David,The wive was most likely Hebrew as well but she was not allowed to go free on Jubilee which is interesting. On the other hand her husband chose to sell her and himself and their children into slavery in the first place. I am going to say poverty was worse than slavery.
OkBut the point that was addressed was that some chose to remain with their masters.
Kerwin can you see how me holding your family might make you choose to remain with me?
David,What version are you using as it disagrees with a few I have seen.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2014,12:24) Quote (david @ April 14 2014,00:09) Everyone is of course free to discuss whatever they wish but if you or others confuse the two, I am going to mention it.
I don't think anyone on this entire site is “confused” about the difference between forced slavery and voluntary slavery.That being said, if I decide later to talk to someone else about voluntary slavery on this thread, you are free to just ignore those posts as if they weren't even there………. like you could have done the first time I was talking to Kerwin about it.
Yes of course. But if you state something blatantly incorrect and confuse forced slavery with voluntary slavery as the whole of the Internet likes to do, I will mention it.david
Quote So Christ spoke a lot on the law. He said: it is written…but I say to you. He adjusted a lot and did away with some. It would have been so easy for him to say: “maybe no more owning other people and forcing them to work, no more forced slavery.”
He didn't. Slavery was all around him. Paul mentioned it often. Paul seems to say we should keep teaching the doctrine concerning slavery.
Terr, perhaps if you could respond to this comment in the other thread?
Christ came to this world not to fix it but to bring people into his kingdom where justice ,and righteousness are the policy ,this world being satan doing and men that follow him ,
so why would Christ even think to fix it
it was from the beginning destin for the fireDavid,
I provided a link to a number of versions and they say “she is to go with him”, ” his wife shall go out with him”, “his wife is to leave with him” or some paraphrase of that. The one you quoted seemed to have said just the opposite.
21:4 speaks of a different situation. It tells of a man who is given a slave as a wife by his master and when he leaves she remains a slave as do any children. That verse and the next do give more power do the master as he can decide if he wants to allow the wife and children to go with the husband or not.
T,
There is nothing to say that slave holding is a sin in Scripture. It is a thing taught in modern culture. Selling slaves was condemned 1 time which seems to limit slavery.
Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2014,02:12) T, There is nothing to say that slave holding is a sin in Scripture. It is a thing taught in modern culture. Selling slaves was condemned 1 time which seems to limit slavery.
KChrist told us the two more important commandment and both of them condemn slavery,
if this is not enough what is it you want
Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2014,07:08) David, I provided a link to a number of versions and they say “she is to go with him”, ” his wife shall go out with him”, “his wife is to leave with him” or some paraphrase of that. The one you quoted seemed to have said just the opposite.
21:4 speaks of a different situation. It tells of a man who is given a slave as a wife by his master and when he leaves she remains a slave as do any children. That verse and the next do give more power do the master as he can decide if he wants to allow the wife and children to go with the husband or not.
Hi kerwin. Maybe you are mixing up verse 3 with the verses that follow. The version I quoted seems the same:“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. 3 If he came by himself, he will go out by himself. If he is the husband of a wife, then his wife must go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children will become her master’s, and he will go out by himself. 5 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,’”
Sorry kerwin you are right.
I have no idea why the word “not” is in there. It isn't in the bible I normally use. Not sure what happened there. I think I have to edited that about quote and I'll show the edits.
Kerwin. I'm pretty sure when I capitalized some words I accidently added that word. Thanks for catching this.
David,
If you type a “not” has a nasty habit of disappearing from a sentence. I have had it happen too often and I often do not see the error until later. It is unpleasant. I guess you found one of my lost “not”'s.
Quote (david @ April 17 2014,22:33) But if you state something blatantly incorrect and confuse forced slavery with voluntary slavery as the whole of the Internet likes to do, I will mention it.
By all means, David.But please show me where I confused the two and thereby stated something blatantly incorrect.
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.
Mike, when discussing this I have been finding that people confuse the two and blur the two very often.I think it was your very first post in this discussion with us that you did this.
I was trying to make the distinction.
JEWS TREATED THEIR JEWISH SLAVES (SERVANTS OR HIRED WORKERS ACTUALLY) DIFFERENT THAN OTHER SLAVES, THE FOREIGN SLAVES.
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.”
(If a person is viewed as a possession, they tend to get treated like a possession. The law wasn't that you can't treat your slave cruelly, but that you can't treat your Israelite slaves cruelly. Non-Israelite slaves could be enslaved indefinitely and were to be treated as inheritance property. But Israelite slaves were allowed to go after 6 years or the next Jubilee, whichever came first.)A very clear distinction is made. The Israelite slaves were to be treated like hired workers and not cruelly. We can call both groups slaves but they were not the same.
After me quoting lev 25 a couple times in response to you, you said:
“Dude,
Why are you nit-picking? You brought up SLAVERY, and then scolded me for talking about Israelites who sold themselves into SLAVERY.”I'm not so much not picking any more than the writer of Leviticus was not picking. I'm merely pointing out the difference. Call them both slaves, but know that they were treated very differently. The Israelites were treated like brothers. The foreigner slaves were treated like property.
Quote Poor Israelites could become real, live, legitimate SLAVES of another person by selling themselves to that other person. Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES.”
It was this comment by you, when you were responding to me trying to make a distinction, that caused me to continue on pointing this out to you.
The scripture literally says the Israelite slaves are to be treated like “hired workers,” and also says they shouldn't be treated cruelly.
But you say: “Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES.”This is why I nit pick.
Quote (david @ April 10 2014,13:20) 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.
This was a conversation between:DAVID and MIKE
and after this post, your very next comment to me was:
“I think I only read the post where you mentioned the Trinity – and then I started posting. Perhaps I should have done what it says in the HN Rules, and read some of the discussion before commenting.
Anyway, my comment about Israelite slaves was to Kerwin – and you're not the boss of what kind of slavery Kerwin and I can talk about in a SLAVERY thread. So chill out, Hitler.”
I am not aware of where I stepped into your conversation with KERWIN. This entire conversation between me and you seems to be me trying to point out the differences, and you saying I'm not picking and jumping into a conversation you were having with kerwin. I am not aware I did this, but if I did, that's not what I was focusing on. I was focusing on what you said and your perception of Israelite slaves vs foreign slaves.
Quote (david @ April 19 2014,23:23) I am not aware of where I stepped into your conversation with KERWIN. This entire conversation between me and you seems to be me trying to point out the differences……….
David,My comment to Kerwin was in the 6th post of page 44.
You butted into that conversation in the 6th post of page 45 – telling me that no one was really interested in discussing Israelites who sold themselves into slavery.
What you probably meant to say was that YOU were not interested in discussing voluntary slavery. Your claim that NO ONE was interested in discussing it was obvious a false claim – since there me and Kerwin were, happily discussing the thing you said NO ONE wanted to discuss.
I was never in any confusion about the difference between forced slavery and voluntary slavery. Nor do I believe Kerwin was ever confused about the difference between the two. So there was never really a reason for you to “point out” the differences to us.
Also, I have read your recent posts, and still can't see where I made a “blatantly incorrect” statement – as you have claimed.
I can't see any place in Leviticus 25 that says Israelites DIDN'T sell themselves into slavery at times – and I am therefore unable to see a “blatantly incorrect” statement on my part.
If I did make such a statement, then I'd like to know where – so I can make the appropriate apologies, and also adjust my previous, incorrect belief.
If there is no such statement, then I'm sure that you would be equally eager to make an apology.
Quote (david @ April 04 2014,16:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,11:12) Quote (kerwin @ April 03 2014,11:45) Slavery is a type of employment contract whose terms vary from age to age and culture to culture.
It could be, Kerwin. 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.
Hi mike.I stand by what I said. Instead of using the word slavery for both things, we should find a way to distinguish it if we are talking about both. It's both confusing for the ignorant and misleading for the uninformed.
But “no one is really too concerned about” hired servant type slaves.
I didn't say “no one is concerned.”
I said “no one is REALLY TOO concerned.”And no one is really too concerned. And if you are very concerned about this I would have to wonder why. If one israelite decided to basically hire another Israelite to work for him essentially, it's not that do traversal or interesting RELATIVELY speaking. No one is really too concerned about that, even if you are, but I doubt you are. Forced slavery is something that is very concerning to many. It's been universally categorized as a crime against humanity. It is concerning to many. The other “hired worker” type slavery, it's really not too concerning.
I didn't think this whole thing was about this. You had started calling me nit picky long before this I had thought.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
