God Condoned Chattel Slavery

I had previously quoted Paul Copan on the Foreign Master / Hebrew Slave in Israel. It indicates that the foreigner who had been a slave in Israel had the possibility of rising to fortune and eventually owning some Hebrew slaves himself.

Here we come across a jarring text, a significant distinction between Israelite servants/employees and foreign workers in Israel. Does this text regard foreign workers as nothing more than property?
...
(1) these foreigners were still nowhere near the chattel slaves of the antebellum South; (2) a significant presence of apparently resentful foreigners requires stricter measures than those for cooperative aliens who were willing to follow Israel's laws; (3) since only Israelites were allowed to own land (which ultimately belonged to Yahweh), foreigners who weren't in Israel just for business purposes were typically incorporated into Israelite homes to serve there, unless they chose to live elsewhere; and (4) strangers in the land could, if they chose, not only be released but potentially become persons of means. For poor foreigners wanting to live in Israel, voluntary servitude was pretty much the only option.


[ Is God a Moral Monster? - Making Sense of the Old Testament God ] by Paul Copan, pgs 140,141, BakerBooks ] [my bolding]

Originally posted by @sonship
[quote] 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..

In the above passage God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery: ...[text shortened]... God [b]regulating something is different from His approving of something as ideal.[/b]

Leviticus 25
39 “ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.41Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

Originally posted by @sonship
I had previously quoted Paul Copan on the Foreign Master / Hebrew Slave [b] in Israel. It indicates that the foreigner who had been a slave in Israel had the possibility of rising to fortune and eventually owning some Hebrew slaves himself.

Here we come across a jarring text, a significant distinction between Israelite servants/empl ...[text shortened]... Sense of the Old Testament God ] by Paul Copan, pgs 140,141, BakerBooks ] [my bolding]

[/b]

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You seem to have inadvertently omitted 25:44 from your quote box.

Also keep in mind that in the following God is depicted as drawing a clear distinction between Hebrew indentured servitude and non-Hebrew chattel slavery:
[quote]Leviticus 25
39 [b]“ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as sla ...[text shortened]... as SLAVES". Instead they are to be " treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you".

Originally posted by @sonship
From what I figure the case which the "Gotcha! Slavery" critics want to highlight is FOREIGN captives, vanquished soldiers, poor foreigners left in the land of Israel, etc. - how was their situation if they became slaves.

That is where I am focusing my attention now.
It is already proven beyond much doubt that the Hebrew slave / servants, while not ide ...[text shortened]... uman dignity, human rights, or any hope at all.

So I concentrate on the foreigner in Israel.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]I had previously quoted Paul Copan on the Foreign Master / Hebrew Slave in Israel. It indicates that the foreigner who had been a slave in Israel had the possibility of rising to fortune and eventually owning some Hebrew slaves himself.

While Paul Copan may be saying that, Leviticus 25:39-55 does NOT.[/b]

"For they [Israelites] are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God.

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners [toshabim] who live as aliens [ger] among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.

You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves, But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."

Originally posted by @sonship
The translation Copan has in discussing this passage is as follows:

[quote] [b]"For they [Israelites] are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God.

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-you may acquire male and fe ...[text shortened]... were Israelite or foreigners.

The linguistic case you are trying to push is not that strong.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Israelites were not to be made slaves (25:39) and were not to be ruled over ruthlessly. They were to be indentured servants instead.

Non-Israelites could be made slaves (25:44-45) and were not afforded the same protections. They were chattel slaves.

[b]I don't think you can press the case that throughout the OT you have clearly [i]TWO different wo ...[text shortened]... rms interchangeably in the OT just as we do in English. As such, context is extremely important.

Originally posted by @sonship
"Slave" today is a emotionally charged term in the West.
Some of that word association as heard by 21rst century Western ears can be considered in getting at what the original language intended to convey.

Originally posted by @sonship
The original Hebrew is important.

"Slave" today is a emotionally charged term in the West.
Some of that word association as heard by 21rst century Western ears can be considered in getting at what the original language intended to convey.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
In Leviticus 25:44-46a what God is depicted as condoning would correctly be called chattel slavery. They are considered property.

In Leviticus 25:39-43, 46b-55 what God is depicted as condoning would correctly be called indentured servitude.

It is what it is.

Originally posted by @sonship
So you will not confess where your are on belief in God.
But you want to talk about God a lot. teaching about God.

I suppose that I really should assume that you have an utter hatred for God. And until you muster some courage to admit where you stand, this thread's veneer of intellectual objectivity is actually an expression of your utter hatred for God ...[text shortened]... irituality forum posturing objective study of the Bible.

I can't respect you ThinkOfOne.[/b]

In Leviticus 25:44-46a what God is depicted as condoning would correctly be called chattel slavery. They are considered property.

In Leviticus 25:39-43, 46b-55 what God is depicted as condoning would correctly be called indentured servitude.

It is what it is.

Originally posted by @sonship

"I had to fire one guy.
In some sense he was my "property" to keep or let go.
I said in SOME sense."

Originally posted by @divegeester
So you morality is “conditional”?

Originally posted by @divegeester
He also believes that there are studies show that some races are genetically inferior to others and that he has difficulty in refuting these.