- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote 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.
–mike
Mike, I withdraw the word blatantly, and upgrade you to simply incorrect.
“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.”
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.”Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES.–mike
You should treat him like a hired worker, and NOT force him to do slave labour–bible.
Quote (david @ April 23 2014,19:22) You had started calling me nit picky long before this I had thought.
And once again, you had thought wrong.
The nit-picky accusation came after your scolding – as it was a direct result OF that scolding.Quote (david @ April 23 2014,19:30) Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES.–mike You should treat him like a hired worker, and NOT force him to do slave labour–bible.
From Dictionary.com……….slave
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.If one SELLS HIMSELF to another, that first one is the PROPERTY OF that other.
The fact that God told them not to treat Israelite slaves as harshly as they were allowed to treat slaves from other nations doesn't change the fact that a person SOLD THEMSELVES to another person – thereby becoming that other person's SLAVE.
Legitimate slave, David.
To read between the lines, Jehovah was saying, “Although they are indeed your SLAVES that you bought fair and square, because they are Israelites, I want you to treat them more like a hired worker than the SLAVE that they are.”
If you can tell me that selling yourself to another person does NOT make you the PROPERTY of that other person, you are correct on this one.
And if you can tell me that a man being the PROPERTY of another man is NOT the definition of “slavery”, you are correct on this one.
Can you tell me either of those two things with complete honesty?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 24 2014,13:15) Quote (david @ April 23 2014,19:22) You had started calling me nit picky long before this I had thought.
And once again, you had thought wrong. The nit-picky accusation came after your scolding – as it was a direct result OF that scolding.
Ya. I made a guess on that one. I sort of felt it might come back to me. My bad.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 24 2014,13:33) Quote (david @ April 23 2014,19:30) Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES.–mike You should treat him like a hired worker, and NOT force him to do slave labour–bible.
From Dictionary.com……….slave
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.If one SELLS HIMSELF to another, that first one is the PROPERTY OF that other.
The fact that God told them not to treat Israelite slaves as harshly as they were allowed to treat slaves from other nations doesn't change the fact that a person SOLD THEMSELVES to another person – thereby becoming that other person's SLAVE.
Legitimate slave, David.
To read between the lines, Jehovah was saying, “Although they are indeed your SLAVES that you bought fair and square, because they are Israelites, I want you to treat them more like a hired worker than the SLAVE that they are.”
If you can tell me that selling yourself to another person does NOT make you the PROPERTY of that other person, you are correct on this one.
And if you can tell me that a man being the PROPERTY of another man is NOT the definition of “slavery”, you are correct on this one.
Can you tell me either of those two things with complete honesty?
EXCEPT,And this is a huge EXCEPT so I'm capitalizing it, EXCEPT, with the Israelites, they weren't really “selling” them self. It was more of a loan.
With the foreigners, they were owned much like I own my shoes. The shoes are mine until they disintegrate.
With the Israelites, it was more of a rental agreement. “You have me for six years.” We can say they were selling themselves, but it's simply not the same situation.
You say the Israelites were not hired servants but legitimate slaves.
The bible says they were to be like hired workers and not treated cruelly, ie: not treated like foreign slaves apparently. (It never says not to treat other slaves cruelly)We can say they were legitimate slaves, but we can also say the word slave is a bit vague and what the Israelites were and what foreign slaves were, are very different things.
They may have not have technically been hired servants, but they were treated like hired servants, like brothers.
Based on your definition a baby is almost a slave. I think you focus on ownership (and this was more of a loan situation) and I focus on treatment. And they were treated differently than what I like to refer to as the actual slaves. (The people who were stolen, enslaved, with no hope of leaving, and beaten)
“you must NOT force him to do SLAVE LABOR. He should be TREATED LIKE A HIRED WORKER, like a settler.”
I wonder what “slave labor” is. Whatever it is, the Israelite slaves were not supposed to do it. I'm sure they worked at something, like hired workers sort of, but not so much slave labor style like actual slave labourers.
Mike,
While I misuse the word blatantly, I think you misuse the word legitimate.
You had said the Israelite “slaves” were:
Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES.
But the bible indicates they were to be treated like hired workers, and not do slave labour, (the sort of labour a legitimate slave would do) and to not be treated cruelly (like an actual slave might be) and that they could leave after 6 years (unlike real slaves which were owned for life).
This is why I said you were incorrect.
David,
So you are speaking of either prisoners of war or those born to slavery. It would seem to me male Hebrew children would be released on the year of Jubilees after the became an adult.
Quote (david @ April 24 2014,00:06) EXCEPT, And this is a huge EXCEPT so I'm capitalizing it, EXCEPT, with the Israelites, they weren't really “selling” them self. It was more of a loan.
EXCEPT,And this is an even huger EXCEPT, so I'm both capitalizing AND bolding it…… EXCEPT for the cases where the Israelite who sold himself to another decided to remain that one's property forever.
There was even an “app” for that, which involved piercing an earlobe with an awl.
So, was it still a “loan” in that case, David?
Dude, face it……. we are both stubborn. I will not give you the satisfaction of “admitting” that I spoke incorrectly when I technically DIDN'T.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2014,13:06) Quote (david @ April 24 2014,00:06) EXCEPT, And this is a huge EXCEPT so I'm capitalizing it, EXCEPT, with the Israelites, they weren't really “selling” them self. It was more of a loan.
EXCEPT,And this is an even huger EXCEPT, so I'm both capitalizing AND bolding it…… EXCEPT for the cases where the Israelite who sold himself to another decided to remain that one's property forever.
There was even an “app” for that, which involved piercing an earlobe with an awl.
So, was it still a “loan” in that case, David?
Dude, face it……. we are both stubborn. I will not give you the satisfaction of “admitting” that I spoke incorrectly when I technically DIDN'T.
I'm not sure you have really looked at that verse a lot.Imagine you have a family. I don't really know, maybe you do. And imagine I have you, your wife, and your child as slaves.
I say to you: “you may leave if you wish. Your time is up. It's up to you. But your wife and child stay with me. If you want, you can stay as well, and if you choose to stay you are a slave for life.”
Tough choice. Do you abandon your family for freedom?
Notice the word “choice.” I would argue it's not a great choice and not much of a choice but it is a choice.
The actual legitimate real slaves that were taken not by choice, and always property forever not by choice, and possibly treated cruelly not by choice, and beaten, had no choice in any matter. Why? Because they were slaves.
You pointing out that they could choose to stay, (being treated not cruelly, and as a hired worker, and not used as slave labor) or choose to leave, is another reason these two sets of people both called by the same word, were not the same.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2014,13:06) Quote (david @ April 24 2014,00:06) EXCEPT, And this is a huge EXCEPT so I'm capitalizing it, EXCEPT, with the Israelites, they weren't really “selling” them self. It was more of a loan.
EXCEPT,And this is an even huger EXCEPT, so I'm both capitalizing AND bolding it…… EXCEPT for the cases where the Israelite who sold himself to another decided to remain that one's property forever.
There was even an “app” for that, which involved piercing an earlobe with an awl.
So, was it still a “loan” in that case, David?
Dude, face it……. we are both stubborn. I will not give you the satisfaction of “admitting” that I spoke incorrectly when I technically DIDN'T.
Mike,
I forgot to answer your question. I was so side tracked that you volunteered another great differentiation between the two.YES, Still a rental agreement UNTIL the “slave” made the… and I'm going to use quotes here… “choice” to stay. It was like a rent to own situation, with the option of buying.
My frustration lies not just in the minor offence of speaking incorrectly but in the general misunderstanding and what seems to be almost willful ignorance by the vast majority of everyone who comments on this subject, and I carry that frustration into this conversation as baggage.
Reading between the lines, apology accepted. 🙂
Quote (kerwin @ April 25 2014,07:03) David, So you are speaking of either prisoners of war or those born to slavery. It would seem to me male Hebrew children would be released on the year of Jubilees after the became an adult.
Yes possibly. I haven't really looked at that. But that was only once every 50 years. Many wouldn't even see that time frame come.Quote (david @ April 24 2014,17:12) “you must NOT force him to do SLAVE LABOR. He should be TREATED LIKE A HIRED WORKER, like a settler.” I wonder what “slave labor” is. Whatever it is, the Israelite slaves were not supposed to do it. I'm sure they worked at something, like hired workers sort of, but not so much slave labor style like actual slave labourers.
Mike. You say the Israelites were not hired servants.And yet, the bible says they were to be treated like hired servants.
You say they were slaves.
And yet the bible says they were not to do slave labor.
You say they were owned and therefore legitimate slaves.
The bible says they (males at least) could to free after 6 years by choice.
And we are told they (and not told this of others) were not to be treated cruelly.
We may call both slaves. But they were not the same. They were treated differently with a different set of rules. I'm sure we agree on this at least.
Quote (david @ April 24 2014,17:21) Mike, While I misuse the word blatantly, I think you misuse the word legitimate.
You had said the Israelite “slaves” were:
Not “hired servants”, but legitimate SLAVES.
But the bible indicates they were to be treated like hired workers, and not do slave labour, (the sort of labour a legitimate slave would do) and to not be treated cruelly (like an actual slave might be) and that they could leave after 6 years (unlike real slaves which were owned for life).
This is why I said you were incorrect.
If they were not to do slave labor I wonder what exactly makes them a slave. If ownership is the sole requirement then my dog is a slave. And perhaps my child is a slave. Yet we don't speak that way. But if I started beating my child and forced him to do slave labor then people would start calling him a slave. No?Quote (david @ April 25 2014,08:51) Quote (kerwin @ April 25 2014,07:03) David, So you are speaking of either prisoners of war or those born to slavery. It would seem to me male Hebrew children would be released on the year of Jubilees after the became an adult.
Yes possibly. I haven't really looked at that. But that was only once every 50 years. Many wouldn't even see that time frame come.
David,Our you sure as I thought Jubilee years were once every seven years.
Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2014,09:56) Quote (david @ April 25 2014,08:51) Quote (kerwin @ April 25 2014,07:03) David, So you are speaking of either prisoners of war or those born to slavery. It would seem to me male Hebrew children would be released on the year of Jubilees after the became an adult.
Yes possibly. I haven't really looked at that. But that was only once every 50 years. Many wouldn't even see that time frame come.
David,Our you sure as I thought Jubilee years were once every seven years.
David,I see it was my mistake. It is the Sabbatical years as well as well as the Jubilee year. That would make it every seven years not every 49 that just Jubilee years would make it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
