Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Hey all, 

 

Long time no post :)

 

I was watching a clip of the Atheist Experience and it focused on slavery. After the show I did a little research to see what the apologists said about it all. On the website below:

 

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

 

I found this (I've underlined the part I want to ask about):

 

"According to verses 20–21, if an owner severely beat his servant, and the servant died, then he would be punished—that was the law. However, if the servant survived for a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him, or that he may have died from another cause. In this case there is no penalty other than that the owner loses the servant who is his temporary property—he suffers the loss."

 

Is that true? That if the slave doesn't die they are set free? I wasn't aware that this was the case, I thought the slave stayed a slave after the beating.  

 

I am not trying to promote anything here (slavery is wrong), I'm just seeking an answer to a question I'm unsure about. 

 

Thanks all

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand this to mean that the master, not the slave, is absolved if the slave doesn't die.  The slave remains a slave.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 


20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
 

 

     Seems it doesn't say the slave goes free or any of the rest of that nonsense.

 

     This page reads like the apologetics I was fed throughout school.  I remember stuff like this (from later in the page:



Regarding Exodus 21:20–21, consider that many of those who sold themselves into servitude were those who had lost everything, indicating that they were often times the “lazy” ones. In order to get them up to par on a working level, they may require discipline.

     It seemed so reasonable to my younger, impressionable and stupider, self.  These people deserved to be beaten.  They needed it even.  And if they died?  So what?  They didn't have anything because they lost it from incompetent, stupid or "lazy."  Good riddance.  Nice of god to know this and protect their masters who were only doing their very best with these losers.  And what a nice excuse for god to do the same to everyone in the world at some point or another.  Wastes of spaces we are.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks both for the replies. Yes, it seems odd to say the slave is set free when the verse suggests that after the beating the person is still the "property" of the master. I am wondering though if there was a verse elsewhere that said as much. Dunno, just trying to figure out why that website said they were freed.

 

Also, anyone know why I never received a notification in my email for these replies? Just checked my settings and they are all right except I chose not to receive web browser notifications (which I assumed shouldn't affect email notification).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaJay said:

Dunno, just trying to figure out why that website said they were freed.

Best I can do is guess; and my best guess is that most apologetics is based on some form of dishonesty.  Likely this is the same.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I looked at their website and the footnote for this section offered nothing so I'm going to take a guess.  Given what they seemed to be saying elsewhere the argument appears to be that these particular slaves, the ones we're talking about here and no others, were more along the lines of indentured servants.  The Jews did tend towards this when we're talking about slavery with other Jews but when we talk about Jews taking non-Jewish slaves then it was essentially the same as any other slavery you might imagine.  So to ensure we're on the same page I'm going to say they're talking about Jews enslaving Jews which amounts to a sort of indentured servitude.  In this case the rules would mean that they are freed at some point (I'm not going to look up the rules to make sure I get them right since the specifics don't matter here).

 

     If this is the case then what this would mean is that they're saying you have a person who becomes enslaved for some reason (usually their own personally failing, like a debtor or some or such thing), and then their master could beat them but they don't want them to die (because they wouldn't get repaid or whatever).

 

     If we think about other forms of slavery, such as with foreigners, then this changes a bit since the slave is never released (unless the master makes it so).  The master could also suffer a loss here since slaves cost money but not quite in the same way as someone being held as forced labor (since you never have to buy them and, I believe, you get to hold them for a fixed period of time so they can work the debt and then some).

 

     I don't know why the site doesn't notify you via email.  Sorry.  Have you checked you spam folder just in case it's going there?

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply mwc. 

 

I've checked my emails and there's nothing in the spam folder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 7:41 AM, SeaJay said:

Hey all, 

 

Long time no post :)

 

I was watching a clip of the Atheist Experience and it focused on slavery. After the show I did a little research to see what the apologists said about it all. On the website below:

 

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

 

I found this (I've underlined the part I want to ask about):

 

"According to verses 20–21, if an owner severely beat his servant, and the servant died, then he would be punished—that was the law. However, if the servant survived for a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him, or that he may have died from another cause. In this case there is no penalty other than that the owner loses the servant who is his temporary property—he suffers the loss."

 

Is that true? That if the slave doesn't die they are set free? I wasn't aware that this was the case, I thought the slave stayed a slave after the beating.  

 

I am not trying to promote anything here (slavery is wrong), I'm just seeking an answer to a question I'm unsure about. 

 

Thanks all

 

The owner of the property loses his slave through death of that slave, not the slave's freedom. If the slave didn't die immediately from his "punishment" then the owner is absolved of responsibility but still suffers the loss of property. An early legal technicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 12:41 AM, SeaJay said:

 

...Answers in Genesis - the people who think that the flintstones is a documentary (Humans walking with dinosaurs)

 

Ken Ham, their leader, has publicly stated that there is nothing that can change his mind. Therefore I don't think we can count on them for an unbiased look at slavery can we?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering if there was an actual verse that said as much or if that website was just assuming that's what happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaJay said:

I was just wondering if there was an actual verse that said as much or if that website was just assuming that's what happened. 

     Try this site.  It does better at explaining.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Try this site.  It does better at explaining.

 

          mwc

 

Thanks for the link I did go through it. I couldn't find anything definitive (that could just be my poor reading skills though). It does mention the Exodus verse but I couldn't find anything that says the slave goes free if they survive the beating. That said, the verse that says "But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property", suggests the slave is still bound (i.e. still the property).

 

EDIT: This text on that site "Deuteronomy seems to be a step backwards from Leviticus. She wonders “…what might have prompted Deuteronomy, with its emphasized humane tendencies, to retain permanent bondage”, implies that the bondage condition remains. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SeaJay said:

Thanks for the link I did go through it. I couldn't find anything definitive (that could just be my poor reading skills though). It does mention the Exodus verse but I couldn't find anything that says the slave goes free if they survive the beating. That said, the verse that says "But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property", suggests the slave is still bound (i.e. still the property).

 

EDIT: This text on that site "Deuteronomy seems to be a step backwards from Leviticus. She wonders “…what might have prompted Deuteronomy, with its emphasized humane tendencies, to retain permanent bondage”, implies that the bondage condition remains. 

     Oh, okay.  I see what you're asking now.  Yeah, no, there is no direct connection between these ideas at all.  If the slave is beaten and survives it remains property until the end of its term according to the rules.

 

     For some reason Jews can embrace these things while xians cannot.  Xians simply need to whitewash their "history."  So, in their version, the slaves were happy liked being slaves, deserved (and perhaps wanted to be beaten almost to death or to death), and they were released if they survived because slavery wasn't so bad.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thank you for the info 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 6:41 AM, SeaJay said:

Is that true? That if the slave doesn't die they are set free? I wasn't aware that this was the case, I thought the slave stayed a slave after the beating.  

First let me begin by saying that the reference to the Hebrew servant in the covenant the LORD made with the Hebrews as a 'slave' is like saying that the John Oliver 'skit' with Stephen Hawking was an 'interview' and I will let it go at that.

 

However, in regards to your question whether the 'servant' was released from any further obligation under their agreement to work for the one who injured them, the answer is yes.   

 

On 10/15/2019 at 7:28 AM, SeaJay said:

That said, the verse that says "But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property", suggests the slave is still bound (i.e. still the property).

 

 

I guarantee you got that verse out of a copyrighted translation of the KJV Bible. 

 

"For he is his money" isn't a reference to being someone's property within the context of the subject matter, "he is other's property"is merely a private interpretation of the KJV scripture.    The terms of the 'servant' and 'bondsman' used in the Torah equate to Employee and Contractor not slave or indentured servant.  

 

Then again, ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Where is it said that the slave is set free?

 

     The wording on the site in question is a tad awkward but it's not that hard to understand.  If the slave is beaten and dies then the master gets an undefined penalty.  If the slave recovers then that person is still a slave.  They then make an additional point, the underlined bit in the OP (and maybe the sentence before). of saying that that if the slave dies after the "recovery period" then it is assumed the slave died from other causes and the master then just suffers the loss but without any penalties.

 

     But nowhere is a beaten slave set free...except...in these two cases:



26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

     So you can beat someone nearly to death and as long as they recover after a few days and you don't knock out any of their teeth or destroy their eyes they're still your property.  Basically, the rule seems to be when you're beating your slave you just avoid the head or at least the face.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.