I have been accused by an atheist of cherry picking verses to support my position on slavery in the old testament. He insinuates that I take verses from several different areas of the bible and use them misleadingly.
As you watch my presentation below, check to see if these verses came from mostly one location in context (Exodus 21), or scattered from various places with no continuity.
Let’s see who is trying to deceive people as I will put the link to the full video below.
The English definition of slave has no bearing on the Hebrew word used to describe a person – we should define what the actual Hebrew word means, and see how it was used in that context. We have to distinguish what that word meant to that audience and bring it forward, not take an English word from a different context and read it backwards into the text. Even still, we currently use the term civil servants to describe government employees. Does that mean that they’re really slaves in the pre-civil war sense? For a definition of the Hebrew word “ebed”, see here: ebed
David Robinson was in the US Naval Academy where he received a free education for a promise to serve his country – a type of indentured servant situation, and the same as an apprentice in a union. How would you go about paying someone back if you owed them money at that time Exodus was written? Maybe working the debt off while being included in a family/clan to keep you from being killed would be a good idea?
Here are some articles that help clarify the scenario: Slavery article, Copan,
In Ex 21:21, the servant is described as the owner’s “kesep” which means money. In the same way an athlete with a contract or a union apprentice that has an obligation is “money” to the debtor, so also a servant is to his master in Exodus 21. Again, are you reading an English translation (property) and using it in a pre-civil war context backwards into the text, or are you using the word in the context of that period?
In Ex 21:4, it’s the master who gives the servant a wife – that seems like a very odd, yet very nice thing to do especially if you were thinking of antebellum, pre-civil war slavery! We need to realize that the woman was also a servant and paying off her debt to the master. If she had 5 or more years of service owed, but the man she was married to was ready to be released, should she be able to leave without paying off her debt? No, that would not be just.
Keeping them together would also protect the institution of marriage and the obligation to pay off your debts. It would force you to take both circumstances seriously as they should be. You wouldn’t take a wife and have kids with her knowing you were going to leave before she did. If you really loved her and the master, you might enter into marriage and get all of the benefits associated with that, and guarantee yourself a job in the process. This would be of great benefit since Monster.com wasn’t available at that time.
In Ex 21:16, the stealing of people and selling them is prohibited. Where does it say this doesn’t apply to slaves? How and why does this skeptic come to that conclusion since all people are created in the image of God biblically? He asks “what’s this got to do with slaves?”
Um… everything! Their lives, and dignity, are being protected which mitigates against his position. It seems like he’s reading something into the text to bolster his misunderstanding.
In Ex 23:12, slaves are given a day off with everyone else. Again, this is in opposition to antebellum slavery that he is obviously comparing biblical servanthood to. He makes like this doesn’t matter, however it does, and it hurts his position. This ordinance shows that servants are people just like everyone else and deserving of fair treatment. He tries to diminish the significance of the ordinance because it damages his position, and then uses the “big whoop-de-doo, are you kidding me” argument. Powerful!
A chart was posted to show what Chattel slavery was. Funny, but the chart showing what biblical slavery is was missing from his expose. However, you can see the whole video here for yourself to see if I was misleading people, or if he was: Biblical Servanthood
I will leave it up to the people reading this explanation, and actually watching the video, to determine if he “set this man straight” on this topic.
I would also like to know what objective standard of morality he’s using to support his position with proof that it is the objectively correct one to use. Please also remember this skeptic’s definition of atheism – “a lack of belief in a god”. This atheist has said several times that he’s open to believing in God. Does this video sound like a person who simply “lacks belief”, or is this someone who is striving against the God of the bible?
I will leave it to you to decide if he, or, I misrepresented the position.
Thank you.
Here is the atheists funny video: HERE
